Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST-WEST TRADE

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the current list of the goods which British industry is permitted to export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, and Czechoslovakia but is prohibited from exporting to China; and what are the reasons for this particular discrimination against trade with China.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 7th February.

Mr. Osborne: Were any tangible results achieved in Washington on this difficult subject between the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower when they recently met? Secondly, when he looks at the whole problem, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that we are now buying at least twice as much from behind the Iron Curtain as countries there are buying from us? Will he bear that side of East-West trade in mind in future negotiations?

Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the first supplementary, it was stated in the communiqué issued after the Washington talks that the controls would be reviewed now and periodically bearing in mind the test which was stated in the communiqué. In regard to the second question, of course I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there will be the same amount of trade permitted with the other countries as we hope will, in time, be permitted with China?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not quite certain which other countries the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Bottomley: Those within the Eastern bloc.

Mr. Lloyd: It is the policy of the Government gradually to increase trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Belgian Government to request the Consultative Group Co-ordination Committee on East-West Trade to scale down the scope of the embargoes on trade with China; and whether he will now instruct Her Majesty's Government's representative on the Committee to make similar proposals.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a statement made in the Belgian Senate on 16th February by Monsieur Larock, the Belgian Minister for External Trade. As the Prime Minister informed the House on 13th February, the controls on trade in strategic materials with China are now being reviewed and it is hoped that proposals to this end will be brought before the China Committee in due course.

Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will give satisfaction, and that it indicates that Her Majesty's Government are intending, however belatedly, to recapture the initiative in this very important matter concerning British exports and world peace?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not so certain about "belatedly."

Captain Duncan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate the great confidence shown in him by hon. Members opposite? Is he aware that it is not necessary for hon. Members on this side of the House to put down Questions in order to show our confidence in him?

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN (KIDNAPPING)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many instances there have been of kidnapping in Western Berlin since the end of the war; on how many occasions have protests been made to the Communist authorities;


how many replies have been received to such protests; and in how many cases have those replies been satisfactory.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): My information relates only to the British Sector of Berlin. As far as I have been able to ascertain from the British records available, there have been 103 cases since the end of the war in which individuals have either been arrested illegally and removed to the Soviet Sector or have disappeared in suspicious circumstances. In thirty-seven cases the circumstances were sufficiently well established to justify protests or requests for information being made to the Soviet authorities. Since 1950, replies have been received in eighteen out of the twenty cases taken up. None of the replies was satisfactory, but in seven cases the individuals concerned were subsequently released.

Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is a horrifying tale and that this story, which really has shocked, and should shock, the conscience of the free world, should be receiving far more publicity and notice than it has done? Will he undertake to raise it at the United Nations? Does not he think that there can be no ground whatever for confidence in anything undertaken by any Communist authority anywhere in the world so long as this disgraceful story continues?

Lord John Hope: I have a great deal of sympathy with much that my hon. Friend has said. I think that in ventilating this, as he rightly says, horrifying state of affairs, he has performed a great service this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a statement about the fisheries dispute between Great Britain and Iceland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a comprehensive statement on the present position of the Icelandic fisheries dispute and, in particular, on the recent talks under the auspices

of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation on the subject.

Lord John Hope: These discussions which are expected to be resumed shortly, are confidential. I can, therefore, make no statement.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied with the pace of the negotiations? Could they not be hurried up, because they have been dragging for some years?

Lord John Hope: I think we really are now getting to the last and successful stage of these long-drawn-out negotiations.

Mr. Younger: May I ask whether the present negotiations are entirely representative of the industries or whether the Governments are engaged?

Lord John Hope: They are between the industries concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

B.B.C. Broadcasts

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the consultations between his Department and the British Broadcasting Corporation concerning British broadcasts to the Middle East; and what action he takes to supply material to counter individual points made in anti-British propaganda from Cairo Radio and Athens Radio.

Lord John Hope: Consultation is mutual: the British Broadcasting Corporation supplies the Foreign Office with monitoring reports on the output of Athens, Cairo and other radio stations. The Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Missions abroad provide the British Broadcasting Corporation with background information and comment when necessary on the contents of the output.

Mr. Peyton: While I accept my hon. Friend's assurance that consultation is mutual, may I ask him if he is aware that there is growing concern and growing feeling in this country that our propaganda and information services in the Middle East are nothing like strong enough?

Lord John Hope: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I think that he would agree, if he


knew all the details of what was going on in this respect, that the situation is not nearly as bad as he fears.

Foreign Secretary's Visit

Mr. Daines: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his tour of the Middle East, he will visit Israel.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange to visit Israel, either on his way to or on his way back from the forthcoming South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Conference at Karachi.

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to visit the State of Israel in the near future.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he does not intend to visit Israel during his coming tour of the Middle East; and if he will extend his itinerary to include Israel.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will visit Israel during his forthcoming tour of the Middle East.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will include a visit to Israel in his forthcoming tour of the Middle East countries.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make time to visit Israel during his forthcoming tour.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the importance of a visit by him to Israel, whether he can yet state when he proposes to make such a visit.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I propose to visit Israel after my visit to Turkey on 13th March.

Mr. Robens: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we, on this side of the House, view that decision with very great pleasure? We are glad that as a result of the pressure from us he has changed his schedule, which originally did not include Israel.

Mr. Lloyd: That is completely untrue, and I am glad to have been given the

opportunity to deny it. This visit was always in my mind, but one does want to ascertain that one's visit would be welcome before one announces it.

Mr. Robens: Is not the Foreign Minister aware that in the schedule given by the Foreign Office Israel was left out?

Mr. Lloyd: For very good reasons; the matter had not then been fixed.

Mr. Daines: May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his announcement, which I am sure will be received with relief and great pleasure by the Israelis, who, I am quite sure, are most anxious for him to visit them?

Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon, and learned Friend aware that the announcement he has made will give equal pleasure to this side of the House and will be received with widespread satisfaction by the Jewish community?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange to visit Israel, as well as Egypt and Jordan, during his forthcoming tour.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As regards a visit to Israel, I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I have just given. It is my intention to visit Egypt on 1st and 2nd March on my way out to Karachi, but I deeply regret that it is impossible to fit a visit to Jordan into the programme.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his decision to have discussions with the members of the Government of Egypt as well as with the Government of Israel will give great satisfaction to all who believe that a peaceful settlement of the differences between those two countries is possible?

Mr. Robens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will indicate his schedule for his calls in the Middle East on his journey to Karachi for the meeting of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty on 6th March.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries he proposes to visit during his forthcoming visit to the Middle East; and


whether he will take this opportunity to visit Israel in order that he may obtain first-hand knowledge of the situation on both sides of the armistice-line guaranteed by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House will be aware, I propose to go to Karachi for the meeting of the Council of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. According to my present programme, I hope to visit Cairo, Bahrein and Delhi on my way to Karachi, and Bagdad, Tehran, Ankara and Tel Aviv on my way back.
I am circulating details of my itinerary in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Robens: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we regard these visits to both the Arab countries and the State of Israel with very great pleasure, and we wish him every success in any negotiations he is able to conduct while he is there.

Mr. Lloyd: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Following are the details:
29th February—Leave London for Rome.
1st–2nd March—Cairo.
2nd March—Bahrein.
3rd–5th March—Delhi.
5th–9th March—Karachi for South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Meeting.
9th–10th March—Bagdad.
10th–11 th March—Tehran.
11th–13th March—Ankara.
13th–14th March—Tel Aviv.

U.S.S.R.

Mr. Robens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement made by a Foreign Office spokesman that Middle East affairs were the legitimate concern of every country, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, how far this constitutes a change in the Government's policy; and whether he is now prepared to invite the Soviet Government to consult the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration about delivery of arms to the Middle East.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Foreign Office spokesman was acknowledging the concern which is legitimate for any member of the United Nations, and his statement represents no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the last part of the Question. I have nothing to add to what was said

by the Prime Minister and by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th December.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this matter was discussed in Washington, and whether or not he would think again of inviting Russia to a meeting of the Tripartite Powers to discuss this matter of arms to the Middle East?

Mr. Lloyd: I must say quite frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that our experience of quadripartite consultations and control in recent years has not been such as to encourage us to extend it to this area. With regard to the Middle East in particular, I think the Soviet attitude over the supply of arms has greatly added to the tension there.

Mr. Robens: May I ask, then, whether the Foreign Secretary will tell the House how he is going to carry out the obligation of the Tripartite Declaration to have a balance of arms in the Middle East if he does not take into consideration the injection of arms from the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Lloyd: When I spoke in the House on 24th January, I indicated that that was a matter which would have to be taken into account.

Mr. Peyton: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that recent Soviet action in the Middle East has done nothing to encourage opinion in this country to have any confidence that their good faith can be relied on more if they were in a quadripartite agreement than at the moment?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is the effect of the Answer I have given.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, nevertheless, it is necessary to be very realistic about this question? If it is conceded that the Western Powers have a legitimate concern in this area and that the U.S.S.R. also has a legitimate concern in this area, what is the practical good purpose to be served by refusing to invite mutual consultations about common legitimate concerns?

Mr. Lloyd: The reason why I have answered as I have is because in October and in November attempts were made to persuade the Soviet Government not to add to the tension in the way in which they have done. That is the answer.

Tripartite Declaration

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that the reference in paragraph 3 of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 to action outside the United Nations is within the provisions of the United Nations Charter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that paragraph 3 of the 1950 Declaration is consistent with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the United Nations Charter, particularly having regard to Article 51.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give a list of the Arab States referred to in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Arab States which gave the assurances referred to in paragraph 2 of the Declaration were the following: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: When so many mutually suspicious Arab States are involved, is it not all the more necessary that the three Western Powers directly concerned should agree on a common policy and not pour trouble waters on the oil there and then go fishing in them? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made his point in his supplementary question.

Supply of Arms

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what principles and factors are being taken into consideration by the parties to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 in arriving at decisions as to whether the balance of arms in the Middle East is being maintained and, in particular, in regard to the possibilities which are to be afforded to a State to defend itself in the event of an attack by a neighbouring State.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations take place between the three signatories of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 before any of the signatories delivers arms to the Middle East.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are in constant and close consultation on the supply of arms to Middle East countries with their cosignatories of the Tripartite Declaration.
In considering requests for arms from Middle East countries their policy is governed by the principles expressed in the Tripartite Declaration itself, and in particular by their desire to avoid an arms race. The Tripartite Declaration specifically acknowledges the right of a State to acquire arms for legitimate self-defence.

Mr. Janner: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions arising out of his reply? First, are the same considerations being given in so far as the supply of arms to the Middle East is concerned as we have regard to when we are making arms or obtaining arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against attack? Secondly, does he not think that it is a useful thing for a courageous people, prepared to defend themselves without asking anybody else to make sacrifices on their behalf, to be given an opportunity of defending themselves against attack, as is the case with regard to Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is what I have said before. We are trying to act in the letter and the spirit of the Tripartite Declaration, and I think that up to date a balance has been kept.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that at the present time each of the three partners of the Tripartite Declaration has information about what is being supplied or about to be supplied by the other two?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the exchange of information takes place in good faith, and I should say that on the whole it is adequate.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can clear up the mystery about the application of the Government of Israel for arms to the value of 50 million dollars? The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that Her Majesty's Government had no knowledge of such an application. Is it or is it not within the knowledge of the Government that such an application has been made to the United States Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put down a Question about that.

Mr. Shinwell: Was there any consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about the supply of arms to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the Arab States, more particularly in view of the fact that we are apparently engaged in a dispute—

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are all after the oil.

Mr. Shinwell: —with Saudi Arabia at the present time? Is it appropriate, on the part of one of the signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, to send tanks to a country where there is a dispute?

Mr. Lloyd: I think there is another Question down on the Order Paper relating to that point.

Mr. Usborne: Rather than oblige either party, or to help both sides to attempt to defend themselves by arms, would it not be better to try to contrive some kind of international police force which could take care of the border, particularly if both sides would move back a kilometre?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is an idea which I put forward in the House on 24th January, and we are still awaiting the considered views of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on that matter. Whether he calls it a police force, observers or a United Nations delegation does not matter much, so long as they are people who would help to keep the peace; but we must wait for what is said by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the matter.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the recent shipment of eighteen United States tanks to Saudi Arabia is taken into account at the next meeting of the signatories of the Tripartite Declaration in considering the implementation of the Declaration.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the recent supply of tanks to Saudi Arabia by the United States of America should be taken into consideration when the signatories to the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 make future plans

for the implementation of the Declaration; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now be prepared to supply Israel with suitable arms to protect themselves against any attack by a neighbouring country.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will place the supply of eighteen light tanks by the United States of America to Saudi Arabia upon the agenda for the next meeting of the Tripartite Declaration Powers, summoned to discuss the implementation of the Declaration.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Specific items are taken into account in the regular consultations on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Tripartite Declaration which take place between the signatories. This item was no exception to the rule.

Mr. Younger: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is a little difficult for the public to believe in effective coordination in the delivery of arms by the three partners when they read of events such as occurred in New York last week, when a decision to ship eighteen tanks to Saudi Arabia was first made, then suspended and then reaffirmed, all within a space of about forty-eight hours? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in fact, there was any consultation in regard to these switches of decision by the United States?

Mr. Lloyd: This process of consultation is quite voluntary as between the three parties, and each of the three parties retains its rights as a sovereign independent State. What we seek to do is to exchange information and try to achieve a common policy. I am certainly not going to be drawn into discussing or into disclosing the attitude of the States concerned on individual items. I think that would destroy the benefit of these consultations and would make the continuance of them on a confidential basis quite impossible.

Mr. Janner: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into consideration the fact that Saudi Arabia has expressed her intention, together with other Arab States, of attacking Israel? Will he not realise at this stage that the Israeli people are prepared to defend themselves without endangering the life of any person in this country or in any


other country, if they are given the opportunity to defend themselves? What is he prepared to do about it?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman did not pay regard to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on 24th January, in which he said that in his opinion the Israeli forces were well capable of coping with any forces which the Arab States could bring against them. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that similar statements have been made before. We are satisfied that up to date a balance has been kept.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of reports that dollars spent in Saudi Arabia were used for fomenting anti-British and anti-American riots in Jordan, is it not foolish to send arms to Saudi Arabia as well? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that will help to preserve the peace in the Buraimi Oasis or other places nearby?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are not sending arms to Saudi Arabia.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But our Allies are.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain why there was no consultation between our Government and the United States Government about sending arms to Saudi Arabia at a time when there is a dispute between Saudi Arabia and this country? Was it not a most improper action to take in the circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said there was consultation about specific items and that this was no exception to the rule.

Mr. Shinwell: If there was consultation, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make any protest against the action of the United States Government?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous Answer. I said that I would not be drawn into disclosing the attitude of the Government on particular items, because that would prevent consultation.

Mr. Amery: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that he is satisfied that these tanks will not be used against our Allies? Will he bear in mind

the importance of maintaining the balance in the Persian Gulf as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Mr. Lloyd: Regarding the first part my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there are certain logistic difficulties which would make it impractical for them to be used for that purpose. The other question is a matter which we have in mind, and it has guided our attitude on this sort of item.

Mr. Shinwell: A very unsatisfactory reply.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are all after the oil.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee to support the proposal for exchange of military blue prints and aerial inspection and the establishment of control posts at key points, as part of an early disarmament agreement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: At the forthcoming meeting of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, Her Majesty's Government intend to do their best to carry out the instructions in the General Assembly resolution of 16th December last, of which Her Majesty's Government were one of the sponsors. This resolution instructs the Disarmament Sub-Committee to give priority, inter alia, to the plan of President Eisenhower for exchanging military blue prints and for mutual aerial inspection, and to the plan of Mr. Bulganin for establishing control posts at strategic centres.

Mr. Henderson: Is it still the view of the Government that these two proposals, if carried through, would do a great deal to remove the atmosphere of international mistrust and suspicion which now exists and would do a great deal to further an eventual general disarmament treaty?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that both these proposals would be a help, but I think that we should not be under any misapprehension. The kernel of the problem is still the question of control, but I think that these two steps would be


some small advance on the path towards proper control. Therefore, I would certainly welcome them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (PERNAMBUCO TRAMWAYS AND POWER COMPANY)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Brazilian Government have reduced the rates for electricity to be charged by Pernambuco Tramways and Power Company Limited, as from 17th January, 1956, to an extent which makes it impossible for the company to pay the interest on its mainly British-held debentures; that this is the only public utility company which has been instructed to reduce its rates; that this reduction does not accord with the fair treatment promised by President Kubitschek to foreign capital invested in Brazil during his recent world tour; and whether he will make representations to the Brazilian Government to ensure that the rates are fixed at a level which will give a fair return to the invested capital.

Lord John Hope: Practically the entire share capital of this company is held by a United States registered company and the British interest is confined to debenture holdings. In the light of discussions now in progress between the company and the competent Brazilian authorities, the new Brazilian Administration will, no doubt, give careful consideration to the desirability of rectifying the situation that has lately arisen. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not feel justified in instructing Her Majesty's representative at Rio de Janeiro to approach the Brazilian authorities.

Mr. Teeling: Does my noble Friend realise that this company is registered in this country; that most of the debenture holders are British; that they have received no interest whatsoever since 1946, whereas there have been very considerable profits for the company; and that that would be a point to help us to try to get some money for this country which we badly need? As there is little time left until the debenture holders foreclose, would my noble Friend give the greatest attention to this matter?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. Hynd: Should not people who have money to invest be encouraged to help to develop their own country rather than to export capital abroad?

Mr. Speaker: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GULF OF AQABA (SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government continue to acquiesce in an arrangement under which British shipowners are required to notify the Egyptian Government of their intention to sail their ships to the Red Sea port of Elath.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have never accepted the contention of the Egyptian Government that they are entitled to exercise at the present time belligerent rights with regard to shipping going to the Gulf of Aqaba. They have, however, accepted these arrangements, initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, on practical grounds pending a wider settlement.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if Nelson had heard the last part of that Answer he would have turned in his grave? By what right does the Egyptian Government require our ships to notify them five years or six years after the close of hostilities, when our ships are moving on the high seas on their lawful occasion? How long are the Government going to sit down under it?

Mr. Lloyd: As I pointed out, these arrangements were initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and have been accepted on practical grounds pending a final settlement. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who generally speaks on foreign affairs for the Opposition, has had an opportunity of discussing these matters with the Egyptian Prime Minister. Were we to take the action described by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that there would be much prospect of a settlement.

Mr. Callaghan: Why does this depend upon a final settlement? What has it to do with any dispute between the Israelis and the Egyptians where our ships sail? That is the point. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter up with the Egyptian Government once again?

Mr. Lloyd: The point is that there is at the present time only an armistice, and the Egyptian Government are contending that, as there is only an armistice, they are entitled to exercise belligerent rights. That is the point.

Mr. Shinwell: The Egyptian Government have no legal right to interfere with shipping in that area. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister, some time ago, advised that we ought to send a warship to deal with the Egyptians?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advised that course before right hon. Gentlemen opposite had referred the matter to the United Nations. I quite agree that there are many unsatisfactory aspects of these matters, such as this exercise of belligerent rights and the kind of reprisal which other countries embark upon from time to time.

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that these abuses existed when right hon. Gentlemen opposite had the power to deal with them?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE (FILES)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the files of Special Operations Executive agents operating in Europe have been made available by foreign countries to British writers; and on what grounds they are debarred only in this country;
(2) whether he is aware that Special Operations Executive files on agents who did not return from operations in the field are not made available to historians, thus precluding a record of their gallant services being made available to the public; and if he will take steps to ensure that the relatives of those who did not return shall have as much satisfaction as those of agents who returned and have been able to write about their exploits.

Lord John Hope: I will, with permission, answer these two Questions together.

Dame Irene Ward: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; I am afraid that I cannot allow that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady might wait to hear the answer. If she is not

satisfied she might consider a supplementary question.

Dame Irene Ward: These are two entirely different Questions.

Mr. Speaker: They might be covered by the same answer.

Dame Irene Ward: But they cannot.

Mr. Usborne: Would you explain to me, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of a Minister requesting permission of the House to answer two Questions together if, in fact, we are not able to refuse that permission? What is the point of asking for it? Surely it is because the Minister may do it only if he is given that permission.

Mr. Speaker: It really is a courtesy phrase used by Ministers; certainly ever since I have been in the House. Surely the adequacy of the answer cannot be judged until it has been given.

Dame Irene Ward: Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, as to read the two Questions? You will find that one refers to action by foreign countries and one refers to our own agents who were dropped in foreign countries. They are two entirely and absolutely separate Questions. Further, if I am not to have two separate answers, I will, if you are polite enough to call me, put a much worse supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The threat of the hon. Lady leaves me quite unmoved. I think she had better hear the answer first.

Lord John Hope: The following is the reply:
Special Operations Executive was a secret wartime organisation much of whose activity must, in the public interest, remain secret. For this reason the organisation's files cannot be made available to the public. A limited amount of information which is not secret can, however, be provided in certain cases, and no distinction is drawn between the records of those who returned and those who did not.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that official people have been refused access to the files—of course, I quite agree that one must have proper regard for security—may I, in order that the


monstrous injustice to these agents who did not return, should be rectified, and if I give my noble Friend an undertaking to submit any manuscript to the Foreign Office, have access to the files? That will fit in with the answer which my noble Friend has given to my Question.

Lord John Hope: rose—

Dame Irene Ward: I want a specific answer, Mr. Speaker, or I shall think that the Foreign Office has something to hide.

Lord John Hope: rose—

Dame Irene Ward: A specific answer, please.

Lord John Hope: There is nobody whom I would rather please than the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but, be the consequences to me what they may, she cannot have special treatment. I regret it.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that for some six months, two and a half years ago I put a whole series of questions on this disgusting episode and that the Foreign Office did cover up? If the noble Lord has the time, will he read the excellent book "London Calling the North Pole" by Colonel Giskes, when he will be ashamed at what happened under this Department's Special Operations Executive?

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Is my noble Friend aware that far too much harm has already been done by amateur authors rushing into print and cashing in on their two years' war-time experience of our secret services? Before encouraging such publications, and before allowing access to the files by hon. Members of this House or anyone else, will my noble Friend safeguard the few remaining secrets in our methods of work and, if necessary, invoke the Official Secrets Act for the purpose?

Lord John Hope: Certainly, we are bound first and foremost to bear security in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my noble Friend if he will kindly authorise an official history so that people like Diana Rowden, Violette Szabo, Lilian Rolfe, etc., etc., and all those other girls and the men who were with them, can have as much glory as other agents have got,

and that information which other people have got shall no longer be denied to their relatives? It is a monstrous injustice.

Lord John Hope: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DONALD MACLEAN (CORRESPONDENCE)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the correspondence from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo to his Department on the conduct of Maclean during the time he was a member of the Embassy staff.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my noble Friend aware that the country would like to know whether the Ambassador or the Establishment at the Foreign Office, or the politicians, are to blame for his retention? Is it not very unfair to those who were not to blame to allow them to accept part of the blame for the Maclean episode? Will he therefore reconsider his answer in the light of that, because the country wishes to know?

Lord John Hope: I think the hon. Lady knows that, as a general rule, correspondence between one servant of the Crown and another in the course of their duties is not liable to publication. I can say that in this case such reports as were made by the Ambassador on the conduct of Maclean at Cairo related solely to the circumstances of his breakdown in May, 1950.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH GEORGIA (SURVEY)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what contribution has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the cost of carrying out the 1955–56 survey of South Georgia.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): Her Majesty's Government have not been asked to contribute to the cost of this survey of South Georgia.

Mr. Hall: Will my right hon. Friend be able to consider an application for financial help, because this expedition is carrying out the mapping of a British


possession and is only able to do so because the members of the expedition are working voluntarily without any payment at all?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend would no doubt like to know that the Governor of the Falkland Islands has informed Mr. Carse that payment of up to £1,000 will be made from the Falkland Islands Dependancy Survey Administration Fund, provided that he can produce survey results satisfactory to the Directorate of Colonial Surveys.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (RICE CULTIVATION)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the acreage in Gambia under cultivation for rice and the yield per acre in 1950 and 1955, respectively;
(2) what percentage of village rice-land in Gambia was tractor ploughed under the mechanical ploughing subsidy scheme in 1955; and what was the subsidy cost per acre.

Mr. Hare: The total area of the many small plots on which most of the Gambia's rice is grown is not precisely known, though a very tentative estimate made in 1953 put it at 50,000 acres. Since 1950 both the acreage and yields have increased significantly, the yield now averaging 500 lb. of clean rice per acre. 1,500 acres were ploughed mechanically in 1955 and the subsidy was about £1 5s. per acre.

Mr. Hall: Is it a fact that it has been possible to get a second crop of rice by improved methods of farming and by tractor ploughing, and if that means that the "hungry season" is now a thing of the past, will my right hon. Friend convey to those concerned the congratulations of the House on that remarkable achievement?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that all those concerned will greatly appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. It is quite true that, for the first time, what is known as the "hungry season" did not take place in this territory, and that that has been largely due to the very great improvements which there have been in the methods of rice production.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Minister of State aware that an important sociological change has also taken place, and that, for the first time in these schemes, the men are now working alongside their women in the fields?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (TURKISH COMMUNITY)

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that he has given equal consideration to the views on the future of Cyprus expressed by Turkish-speaking Cypriots and the Turkish Government as opposed to those expressed by Greek-speaking Cypriots and the Greek Government.

Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir. The Governor has consulted the leaders of the Turkish community in Cyprus and Her Majesty's Government have kept in close touch with the Turkish Government. Their views have been given the fullest consideration.

Major Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask him to bear in mind that in certain quarters there is a definite fear that at the end of the current negotiations with Archbishop Makarios the Turks may be faced with a fait accompli?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: As this is probably the only Question on Cyprus which will be reached this afternoon, may I ask the Minister whether, in view of the reported breakdown in the negotiations, we can be certain of having a statement on Cyprus next week?

Mr. Hare: I have no confirmation of a report of a breakdown, but I will certainly bear in mind what my noble Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (HOSPITAL CHARGES)

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the recommendations of the Fraser Medical Committee in Uganda that free medical treatment at the hospitals should be withdrawn and that a charge of 1s. per out-patient should be introduced; and whether, in view of the importance of this service and its present inadequacy, he will resist this proposal.

Mr. Hare: The Protectorate Government are at present examining the Report and have not reached any conclusions. One of the objects of the Committee's recommendation is to discourage unnecessary attendance at hospitals and dispensaries, thereby helping to ensure better treatment for those who are genuinely sick. The payment of a small fee would also contribute to the expansion of the service, on which the Protectorate is engaged. The Committee recommends exemption from payment for genuinely poor people and emergency cases.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the House has heard the phrase about "unnecessary attendance at hospitals" before, and that we do not think there is very much veracity in it? Will he further remember that in that area a shilling is a considerable sum of money as compared with a shilling in this country? Can we not have a real assurance that there will be no charges whatsoever?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but I can assure him that what he has said will be very carefully considered. I think that it would be quite improper for my right hon. Friend to comment until he has received and considered the views of the Uganda Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA HIGH COMMISSION (HEADQUARTERS)

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider moving the headquarters of the East Africa High Commission from Nairobi to some centre outside Kenya such as Entebbe.

Mr. Hare: No, Sir. The legislation establishing the East Africa High Commission provides that its headquarters shall be at Nairobi, and that the Governor of Kenya shall be its Chairman. Nairobi is geographically midway between Dar-es-Salaam and Entebbe, and experience has shown that it provides the most convenient site for the headquarters.

Major Wall: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that in Tanganyika and Uganda more confidence would be inspired in the East African High Commission if its headquarters were not in

Nairobi and if the senior Governor took the chair?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that I can agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. After all, Nairobi is situated literally on the centre of the lines of communication in East Africa. In fact, for twenty years prior to the formation of the High Commission, Nairobi has been the headquarters of most of the inter-territorial services. It may be of some comfort to the hon. and gallant Member if I tell him that the High Commission does not always meet in Nairobi. Of its last two meetings, one was held in Dar-es-Salaam and the other in Entebbe.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR (PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration has been given to exhibiting in Gibraltar, for the information of the people, plans in respect to the Port Development Scheme; and what has been decided in this respect.

Mr. Hare: The Governor has considered this. The plans for the Port Development Scheme will be made available to the public in Gibraltar as soon as the final details are complete.

Mr. Dodds: In thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him if he is aware that many people in Gibraltar are deeply grateful to his right hon. Friend for the splendid efforts which he is making to help them solve their serious economic problems, but that they are disgusted with the procrastination of the Admiralty with regard to oil bunkerage space for commercial purposes?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is very fair, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will very much appreciate the generous tribute which the hon. Member paid in the first part.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (SUGAR INDUSTRY)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans the Government of Northern Rhodesia have to develop the sugar industry in the


Girembe Native Reserve; whether the African inhabitants have been consulted; and how far it is proposed to establish African co-operative societies for this purpose.

Mr. Hare: Plans to develop up to 8,000 acres for sugar growing in the Gwembe Native Reserve are now being considered; but no decision has yet been reached on the scheme itself or on the use of co-operative societies. The Native Authority in the area has been consulted and is in favour of the scheme.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him if he will assure us that the land in this Reserve will not be alienated from the natives, as was done in a similar project on the other side of the Zambesi? Secondly, could he not utilise the services of the African co-operative societies in the purchase of the seed and the marketing of the sugar.

Mr. Hare: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that we must wait to hear again from the Government of the territory before we can make any other arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Arrested Persons

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Ordinance 1,000 Africans alleged to belong to the passive wing of Mau Mau in Nairobi and the emergency zone have been arrested; and what opportunity they will be given of answering the charge against them.

Mr. Hare: During the week ended 28th January, 927 Africans were arrested and charged before the courts for various offences including vagrancy, trespass, theft, offences against Emergency Regulations and offences against byelaws. Eighty-two Africans were arrested as Mau Mau suspects, of whom 77 were released, four are still under investigation, and one was made the subject of a detention order.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is the case that a movement along non-violent lines is now developing in Kenya, and whether the

Government will differentiate in their treatment of those who adopt non-violent methods and those who are concerned in Mau Mau atrocities?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that that is really quite part of the original Question. I should like, if I might, to make a detailed list of all the thousand cases, from which the hon. Gentleman will see the proportions. If I may, I will send it to him.

Mr. Brockway: I thank the Minister.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Chege alias Kinyungu, son of Gakungu, Ngethe, son of Mutumbu, Kamau, son of Ngethe, Harrison, son of Kamau, and Wamungu, son of Karaungu, who were arrested in Nairobi on 25th August last and sent to Manyani detention camp, are still in detention; what charge has been brought against them; and what is the evidence on which it is based.

Mr. Hare: These men are detained on grounds of public security because of their complicity in Mau Mau activities. No charges have been preferred against them. The Advisory Committee on Detainees has reviewed their cases and has recommended that they remain in detention. The Governor has accepted this recommendation.

Mrs. Castle: As the military campaign against Mau Mau is now practically closed, and in view of the very suspicious circumstances concerning the arrest of these men, which I raised in this House on 21st December, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be advisable to have a public trial of men detained so recently instead of merely giving these vague and unproved grounds for their detention?

Mr. Hare: The evidence concerning the complicity in these Mau Mau activities was really sufficient to satisfy the Advisory Committee, who are under the chairmanship of a judge, and they were quite clear in their minds that there was every justification for detaining these men.

Enfranchisement of Africans (Report)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the decisions of


the Kenya Government on the recommendations in the Coutts Report regarding the enfranchisement of Africans.

Mr. Hare: The proposals of the Kenya Government on the recommendations in the Coutts Report have been published in a Sessional Paper which is now being debated in the Legislative Council of Kenya. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, no statement to make at present.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware of the very deep resentment that there is among Africans towards these proposals, and particularly the proposals that there should be plural votes for certain persons, and an income restriction upon other Africans; and will he urge reconsideration of these proposals?

Mr. Hare: My information is not the same as that of the hon. Member. I have arranged for copies of the Coutts Report and of the Sessional Paper to be put in the Library. I think that hon. Members would be interested to read them. The discussion in the Kenya Legislature should be over by the end of the month, and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that it would be better to wait until we have had all the information before reviewing this.

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that these proposals have been very well received in certain quarters, and is it not very much to the advantage of Kenya that the proposals should be given a chance to be worked out without interference from this House?

Mr. Hare: I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend is quite correct. On the whole, the reaction has been very favourable, and I still think that we must give the proposals a reasonable chance.

Mr. J. Johnson: May I ask the Minister to look again at the so-called loyalty test, which has caused enormous ill-feeling among the Kikuyu and Embu and Meru peoples, and which can lead to discrimination and abuse by administrative officers in certain cases?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that a debate is going on at the moment in the Kenya Legislature and that this is one of the points that is to be taken up in that debate. I would much rather discuss this when we have had full details of the debate.

Kikuyu Reserve (Children)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children are estimated to have died in the Kikuyu Reserve in Kenya during the last year from causes aggravated by malnutrition; and how far feeding arrangements have been established to save child life.

Mr. Hare: No estimate is possible. A sample survey in the Central Province in 1955 revealed some malnutrition among children, due mainly not to shortage of food but to incorrect diet. Supplies of free milk, feeding centres and staff to promote health education have been provided to tackle this problem.

Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen statements by a Minister in the Kenya Legislative Assembly quite recently about hunger in these villages among children? I ask him again, what steps have been taken to meet this situation?

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up this Question. First of all, it gives me a chance to pay a tribute to the wonderful work that the Red Cross and the missions have done to assist our own administration. I should like to make two points on what the hon. Gentleman has said. Supplies are being distributed where necessary, and the district officers who observe food shortages in their districts can call on resources at the disposal of the Provincial Administration to provide free food for children and other forms of relief in case of need.

Kamau Kichina

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of the inquiry by the Governor of Kenya into the conduct of Mr. Richmond, the administrative officer concerned with the case of Kamau Kichina.

Mr. Hare: Mr. Richmond's appointment has been terminated.

Mrs. Castle: While warmly welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that I was perfectly justified in the charges that I brought against this man's professional conduct, for which the Colonial Secretary bitterly attacked me? Would the right hon. Gentleman convey


to his right hon. Friend that it would be wise to be more sympathetic in future when matters like this are raised?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that my right hon. Friend always wishes to be sympathetic to the hon. Lady. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I think I should say that it was he who caused the investigation to be made into this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES UNION CONGRESS (MEETING)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the concern felt by the Trades Union Congress over the Government's recent announcement concerning the economic situation, he will arrange to meet the Trades Union Congress as early as possible to discuss the Government's proposals and to hear the views of the Trades Union Congress.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
It is—and has been—my right hon. Friend's intention to meet members of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress at some convenient moment soon.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Lord Privy Seal for that reply, may I ask him to convey to the Prime Minister the feeling that the T.U.C. General Council is very concerned? If he can arrange for the Prime Minister to see the General Council as speedily as possible, I am sure they will convey to him some home truths on behalf of the trade union movement of this country.

Mr. Butler: I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend is aware of the General Council's anxieties. He has already had an indication of them. I am equally certain that if there is to be an exchange there will be an exchange of realities. This may lead to the national good, and that is the desire of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Industrial Uses

Mr. Osborne: asked the Lord Privy Seal how soon atomic energy will be available for industrial purposes; and what will be its estimated cost as compared with coal and oil at today's prices.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Government's White Paper on Nuclear Power, published last year, in which it is stated that the first commercially operated nuclear power stations will come into operation in 1960–61. It is estimated that the cost of electricity generated in these stations will be about six-tenths of a penny per unit; this is approximately the same as the cost from a modern coal or oil-fired station.

Mr. Osborne: Since those estimates were published about a year ago, may I ask whether everything has been done to expedite this new source of power, since we are so dependent upon increased power for industrial purposes and the output of coal does not seem to meet our needs?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have consulted my noble Friend, who has now returned to this country. It would appear that the estimates which I have given are up to date, but I will, of course, inform House if there are any changes in these estimates.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the Lord Privy Seal emphasise that whatever acceleration programme takes place, the main requirement and the main source of fuel for power in this country is going to remain coal for a very long time? We need as much coal as we can get. Would he also bear in mind that, as far as costs are concerned, the cost of oil is in any case quite fictitious?

Mr. Butler: The best thing I can do is to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said yesterday, that after visiting certain stations he had come to the conclusion that the best way to enlarge and increase atomic power was to support the production of coal, as coal was at the basis of the production of atomic power. I should like to endorse that on behalf of the Government and to show how wise my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was in that remark.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the extreme urgency of the position, will it not be possible by means of extra priorities to bring this scheme into operation before 1960?

Mr. Butler: Under this Government we have taken especial steps to develop this new source of atomic power, and


I am satisfied that, despite the various difficulties which we are experiencing at the present time, it is the Government's intention to press ahead with this new source of power.

Reactors (Nuclear Fuel)

Mr. Moss: asked the Lord Privy Seal how soon he expects that British firms which accept contracts to build nuclear reactors in foreign and other overseas territories will be able, in cooperation with the Atomic Energy Authority, to supply nuclear fuel as part of the contract.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If the reactors in question require natural uranium, the Atomic Energy Authority are confident that this will be available as soon as it is required. Supplies of enriched uranium are limited, and have to be shared between defence and civil needs. Some of the civil share will be reserved to meet export requirements, although, as I have indicated, the quantity which is available will be limited.

Mr. Moss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are likely to offer research reactors and appropriate fuel—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Subsidised.

Mr. Moss: —by cut prices in order to capture orders? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in The Times today it is reported that Marshal Bulganin claims that the Soviet Union is ahead of all other countries in the peaceful application of nuclear energy? Bearing in mind the magnificent achievement of the British nuclear programme so far, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is important for our future export trade that we should be able to compete in this market?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Of course, we watch very cautiously and carefully the development taking place in other countries, including the Soviet Union. So far as I can tell, the hon. Member's observations will need a certain amount of checking before we are satisfied about their accuracy, but we take them very seriously nevertheless. The output of enriched uranium is limited to the capacity of the Authority's diffusion plant at Capenhurst and we are watching that with a view to meeting the needs of the nation.

Mr. Usborne: While it is important for this country that we should be able to export fissile material and reactors, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees that it would be quite wrong to resist the creation of what is called Euratom in Europe solely or even mainly on the ground that if it were created it would be harder for Britain to export into Europe?

Mr. Butler: The question of Euratom raises rather bigger questions than are involved in this Question. I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is going to a meeting of the O.E.E.C. at the end of this month, when this and other similar matters of European integration will come up for discussion. If I may, I will ask him to consider what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal, if he will state the terms of the arrangement between the Atomic Energy Authority and Associated Electrical Industries, whereby the latter are to construct a privately-owned nuclear reactor of 5,000 kilowatt capacity and are to receive a supply of nuclear fuel for its operation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Associated Electrical Industries propose to construct this reactor as a private venture. The Atomic Energy Authority will supply the necessary nuclear fuel on a rental basis.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the vast implications of this new development, involving the private ownership of an atomic power plant, even if it is only on a comparatively small scale, is it not right that the House should be fully informed of all the details of the agreement, including such matter as the conditions under which the enriched fuels are being supplied and what arrangements are being made to deal with the plutonium by-product at the end which may be of weapons grade?

Mr. Butler: I am able to inform the House of the terms of the loan of the nuclear fuel by the Atomic Energy Authority. They will cover the following: first, the cost of fabricating the fuel elements; secondly, a percentage of the total cost of the fuel, including an element for research and development; thirdly, the cost of fuels spent during the running of the reactor; and fourthly, the cost of


reprocessing spent fuel elements. I mention that only because the hon. Member asked whether I could give an indication of the terms. I hope my Answer will be an indication to him that the terms are being very carefully watched.

Mr. Beswick: While accepting that this is a private venture—and whether it should be or not is entirely a different question which some people might dispute—would the right hon. Gentleman say how much this private firm is paying for the know-how and information which is being given to it by the Atomic Energy Authority, which has cost the Authority so many millions of pounds of public money?

Mr. Butler: That is such an important question that I should need notice of it.

Mr. Maclay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that A.E.I. are being extremely public-spirited in spending very large sums of money on their own account and, more, being prepared to make available this reactor, when ready, for study by our universities and other institutions?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Not only have the A.E.I. been patriotic in this matter, but they intend to make the reactor available for educational research work by a group of southern universities.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever the merits or demerits of the last supplementary question, is the Lord Privy Seal aware that a lot of public interest and some anxiety exists about the terms of these arrangements? We are embarking on an entirely new field and, while we are grateful for the information which we have been given this afternoon, will the right hon. Gentleman consider either making a detailed statement or publishing a White Paper so that we can have details of the whole of these arrangements?

Mr. Butler: As the transaction in question is inspired by the utmost public spirit, I can see no objection whatever to making available to the House all the information which I have. I will consult my noble Friend as to the best way of doing that in order that the House may be informed and the hon. Member may be satisfied.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Betting, Lotteries and Gaming

Mr. Lewis: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th March, I shall call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, and move a Resolution.

Engineering Industry

Mr. de Freitas: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th March, I shall call attention to the future of the engineering industry, and move a Resolution.

New Techniques (Industrial Application)

Wing Commander Bullus: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th March, I shall call attention to the need to reduce the time taken between the discovery by research scientists of new techniques and their application in industry, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine of the clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1955–56

CLASS IV

VOTE I. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,698,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION, ENGLAND AND WALES

3.36 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): rose—

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. I understand that Scottish education will also be discussed today, Sir Charles. May I take it that the Minister of Education will deal with the Scottish aspect of the matter when he is speaking, or is a Minister representing the Scottish Office to follow him?

The Chairman: I cannot help that. The only Supplementary Estimate before the Committee is that which I have just read out. The Scottish Estimate is not in that.

Sir D. Eccles: I understood that the Scottish Vote was to follow after the English Vote. I think it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman if he gets a chance when we have finished with our Vote.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. I understand that the consideration of both the English and Scottish Estimates will terminate at seven o'clock? Is that correct?

The Chairman: That is the time for Private Business. I have some Private Bills down for consideration.

Mr. Rankin: In that case, at what time will Scottish business be considered?

The Chairman: That depends on how long the English talk.

Sir D. Eccles: I think the English had better get on with their talking, Sir Charles.
The £4,698,000 which I am asking the Committee to grant to the Ministry of Education seems a large sum of money, but it has to be seen against the original Vote of £271 million. It therefore represents an addition of 1·7 per cent. As the Committee knows, next year the Estimates will rise very sharply, and it is, therefore, very proper that we should study with the greatest care any additional expenditure this year. The sum now asked for is almost entirely in respect of increases in wages and salaries, over which the Ministry of Education has no control.
There are further amounts in respect of awards to students in universities and colleges, and one or two small items. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate required for either of those fascinating topics, technical education or the building programme, both of which, no doubt, we shall have a chance to discuss later.
I will briefly run through the headings of the Supplementary Estimate, as that may be of some help to the Committee. Subheads A.1 and B.1 are in respect of administration and the salary portion of that expenditure. The additional sums are due to new salary increases during the year and are not in any way due to an increase in the numbers of staff either of Her Majesty's Inspectorate or of the Ministry of Education itself. We then come to the one large sum, £6 million, in respect of additional grants to local education authorities. The main item in that £6 million is expenditure on school meals. That, as the Committee knows, is 100 per cent. grant-aided. We underestimated the expenditure on school meals by no less than £2½. million.
That seems a very large error, but the addition includes £1·2 million in wages for manual workers which were increased as a result of nationally negotiated agreements. This increase was, therefore,


automatic so far as the Ministry of Education was concerned. The other part of the increase is due to more and better meals and certain sums for the increased cost of fuel and other overheads relating to the cooking of meals.
The Committee may be interested to know that the wages bill for the school meals service in England and Wales will, in 1956, be £19 million, and the total overheads, including the wages, will amount to £27 million. After taking into account the 9d. that is paid by parents in respect of 90 per cent. of the meals served, the charge to the Exchequer will be £31 million for school meals. That is a very large item, but I think the Committee will agree that the school meals service has made a very important contribution to the children's welfare.
Figures showing a small, steady increase in the take-up of meals are interesting. Last autumn, the number of children taking meals in England and Wales was 3,018,000, or 48·3 per cent. of those present on the day concerned and almost 3 per cent. more than a year previously. The additional sums arising from these factors, together with a certain increase in the standard of the meals which we have discovered was desirable and an increase in the number of schools providing those meals, accounts for this, the largest, item in the £6 million.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Minister tell us whether or not children in Scotland take more advantage of the meals service than those in England?

Sir D. Eccles: That is a very interesting question. I should expect the answer to be yes, knowing the sagacity of the Scots, but the hon. Member will not have long to wait, I understand, before the Vote on Scottish education is discussed. He will then have a chance of asking that question of a representative of the Scottish Office.
In addition to the extra cost of school meals the education service as a whole is affected by fuel and wages costs, and we have a considerable extra bill for them. The next biggest item is equal pay. As the Committee knows, the Burnham Committee recommended for teachers a system of equal pay on the same pattern as for the Civil Service and I approved it on 1st May. We had not taken any account of that in our Estimates

and we now find that for this, the first instalment of seven which will eventually bring the pay of women teachers up to that of men, we require £2·1 million, 60 per cent. of which falls on the Exchequer.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point? Could he say whether, in England and Wales, in order to introduce equal pay, the same was done as in Scotland, where the salaries of men teachers were brought down to meet those of women teachers? Was that done in England?

Sir D. Eccles: I am sure that we did not do anything of the kind in England. Things are very well arranged in England, as the hon. Member may know.
The cost of equal pay will rise, in the end, to about £15 million a year on the present level of salaries. That is more than seven times the first instalment. The reason for this is that the number of women teachers is going up.
Then we come to allowances for advanced work. Those allowances in their original form were recommended by the Burnham Committee in its 1954 Report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) said at that time that she accepted the additional special allowances on the understanding that the authorities would make good use of the provisions for filling particular posts. She explained that she had in mind the great need for attracting to and retaining in the profession well-qualified graduates, particularly teachers of science and mathematics.
In November, 1954, I thought I had better ask the Burnham Committee to review the use that was being made of those provisions and to consider whether it thought that the arrangements for the payment of teachers engaged in this responsible advanced work were adequate. The Committee, reporting back, recommended certain changes which came into effect on 1st April last. I approved those changes on the understanding that they should be regarded as minimum recommendations and asked local authorities as far as possible to apply them to the full. We were not sure how much that was going to cost. We estimated that those additional allowances would require another £1 million. In fact, they called for £2 million. Therefore, there is an


extra £1 million for special allowances inside this £6 million.
I have no doubt that it is right to pay an appropriate reward to teachers who have special qualifications and who are doing work of special responsibility, either in administration or in teaching. It is very difficult to do it without rousing quite a lot of jealousy in the common rooms. At present, the Burnham Committee is reviewing the working of these special allowances. In particular, the relationship between them and the head teacher's allowance probably wants looking at. I ask hon. Members not to condemn the system of paying something extra for special qualifications because, in the beginning, this system is proving rather difficult to work.
I am quite certain that we all want to see men and women with particularly good qualifications attracted to the teaching profession. We all want to see posts of high responsibility adequately rewarded. It is very difficult to invent a system which pleases everybody and appears just to everybody, but I am confident that the Burnham Committee which now has more experience to go on, will make recommendations that will help us in this matter.
In the meantime, the number of teachers who are drawing special allowances has very much increased as a result of the improvements which we are considering today. I think it is right to say that many local authorities have found the staffing of grammar schools considerably easier as a result of the application of the allowances.

Mr. R. Moss: Is it not also an important point that being sandwiched between the primary schools, on the one hand, and the financial attractions of the grammar schools, on the other hand, the secondary modern schools are being denuded of staff? This is a consideration which the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind when considering these financial attractions.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member was good enough to raise the point the other day at Question Time, and I told him I was looking into it. It is a serious matter.
There is no doubt that the development of the secondary modern school is of supreme importance. I hope that the

secondary modern schools, too, will get teachers with high qualifications. I am sure that some of the work done in these schools has an interest and a quality that would attract such teachers. It may well be that the Burnham Committee is taking all these things into consideration. At any rate, we have found that, not £1 million, but £2 million is being used by the local authorities for these allowances. By and large, I think it is fairly applied.
There are, of course, differences between one local authority and another. They cannot be ironed out completely because the allowances are, in part, discretionary and I do not think one would wish to iron out the differences completely. I think, however, that the power to pay the allowances is being used a great deal more evenly since the last improvement than it was before.

Mr. Ede: The Minister said that the staffing of grammar schools was now considerably easier. Was the word "considerably" carefully chosen? I admit that the position is somewhat easier, but from my experience and the communications I have had, I doubt whether "considerably" is really justified.

Sir D. Eccles: The position differs very much from one area to another. I always want to keep my fingers crossed, but I must say that the number of new entrants to the grammar schools for the teaching of science and mathematics is more than we had anticipated, although it is not enough. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no possible ground for complacency. It is only that the position is not quite as bad as we thought it would be.
Another item within the £6 million is extra pay required for part-time teachers, whose rate of pay is within the discretion of the local authorities. A part-time teacher is a valuable person, and I do not know how we should get through without these people in many areas where there is overcrowding in the schools and a shortage of teachers. I very much hope that now that teacher rationing has gone, local authorities will continue and even extend the practice of employing part-time teachers.
One or two authorities will only employ woman teachers full-time. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of the education system, for these women with their past experience, may be of


the greatest use in part-time teaching. If they are taken on, the local authority concerned does not need quite so many full-time teachers, who may then be available to take posts elsewhere with neighbouring authorities.

Mr. F. Blackburn: If the Minister considers it important to attract more part-time women teachers into the schools, does he not think that he should alter the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill to make the attraction a little greater?

Sir D. Eccles: That is rather late in the day. I hoped we were talking about a different subject.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend is only putting a personal point of view.

Sir D. Eccles: I am grateful to anyone who puts a point of view.
Then we come to awards for university students, and further education students, and grants to students in teacher training colleges. I will not trouble the Committee with details, but the awards and grants have been substantially increased during the last year and the means test for parents has been made less onerous. The result of this is a considerable extra sum in the Estimate. I am anxious that local authorities should give the same grants in all areas, and that they should give the same award to students who are undergoing courses in technical colleges comparable to university courses as are given to university students. All except three local authorities have now accepted the new rates and scales.
There are one or two other small items. When the special allowances were increased, it was necessary to increase the grants to direct grant schools. For this, £143,000 is included in Subhead D.1 together with a further sum for grants for the training of teachers in the voluntary teacher training colleges. There is a small sum for further education which arises from our acceptance of the recommendations of the Ashby Report, about which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will speak later if any hon. or right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask questions; and there is a small sum in regard to the education of the Poles. All this adds up to nearly £5 million.
We cannot escape the fact that the education service is expanding and must go on expanding, and that the cost of this service is bound to increase very heavily. Because this expansion is taking place, it does not follow that my Department does not look at individual items with the greatest care, and we encourage the local authorities to do the same. I believe that, by and large, the expenditure is well controlled and we get value for money, but that does not in any way absolve us from continually looking for fresh economies. I ask the Committee to grant this further sum to the Ministry of Education.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall be brief, because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to comment on this Estimate. Indeed, the Committee hopes to deal later in the afternoon with other Estimates and we must, of course, hope that Scottish Members get for the discussion of their Estimate at least eleven-eightieths of the time taken by the English Members on theirs.
The Minister has helped the Committee by explaining a number of detailed points in the Estimate. I wish to refer again to some of those points and to raise one or two others that seem to me to arise from the Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the special allowances for teachers and I was interested to hear him suggest that these allowances have already shown some return in an improved position in the grammar schools.
I fully accept the view that it is proper to reward higher qualifications or the taking on of exceptional responsibility, but before coming to any final judgment about the operation of the arrangements made in April last it will be necessary to have a good deal further information. No doubt, at some subsequent time, the Committee will be able to express a more considered judgment and to take into account the very important point already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss).
The Supplementary Estimate refers also to adult education, and in that connection the right hon. Gentleman said that the sum here mentioned, £36,000, arose from the acceptance of the Ashby Committee's Report. The Ashby Committee, though it was on a smaller scale, was, in a sense, the precursor of the Guillebaud


Committee, for it was set up possibly with one intention but produced a Report which pointed to quite another, and which encouraged the Government to take a very favourable view of adult education.
I should like to ask two questions relating to two of the Ashby Committee's recommendations. First, the fourth speaks of the desirability of local education authorities encouraging voluntary work in adult education, for example, by the provision of accommodation free of charge. Many authorities do that already. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be able to say that, since the Report was produced, other authorities have taken its advice and are being generous in that respect?
The other is about the eighteenth recommendation, that the Minister should consider setting up a small committee to advise on the subjects and types of adult education course which should receive priority in qualifying for grant. The committee has, I believe, been set up. Perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us what advice it has so far given about the subjects and types of course which should receive priority in grant, and what view the Minister has taken of any recommendations the committee has made.
The last item in this Supplementary Estimate is for the education of Poles. I wonder whether we can be told how much longer this item is likely to appear in the Ministry of Education's Estimates. It was entirely right and proper that those Poles who were to become our fellow citizens in this country should have had educational facilities made available for them; but it is extremely important that they should as soon as reasonably possible merge themselves in the community of British citizens.
When I was a junior Minister, at the War Office, and in part responsible for this problem, it was very much borne home to me that the shorter the time in which they undergo any separate treatment, and the more speedily they can be absorbed in the general body of the nation, the better. Possibly we can be told how long this separate item is to continue. For as long as the item is necessary, we shall heartily approve it, but I hope that the time is coming when it will no longer be necessary as a separate item.
I notice that the Supplementary Estimate is £15,000 less than it might have been owing to savings on the Youth Service. I hope those savings are not likely to result in the damaging of the work which the Ministry can do for the Youth Service. I want to specify one or two matters to which attention has been drawn by a recent, interesting report brought out by the London County Council, which referred to the work of the Central Youth Employment Executive, on which the Minister is represented. That report, for example—

The Chairman: We are discussing extra expenditure, and cannot now discuss savings which have been made.

Mr. Stewart: I was afraid that you would take that view, Sir Charles.
However, I have drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this very interesting and useful report, and I can only hope that the effect of the savings will not be damage to any of the useful suggestions which are made in it.
I turn now to the major item in the Supplementary Estimate, the £6 million increased grant to local education authorities. The Minister said that it was largely due to wages and salaries over which he has no control. No control, perhaps; but if the Minister imagines that some of his recent speeches will not have any influence on the level of wages and salaries he is profoundly mistaken. Indeed, I think he hopes that they will have an influence. He must admit that it is really a little fictional to say he has no control over these matters. The Bill going through Parliament at the moment is likely to have a considerable influence. We shall not regret it if the Minister has to meet a larger bill in future for wages and salaries.
I should like to make it clear—I think I am speaking for all my hon. Friends in saying this—that there are no items in the Supplementary Estimate which we should carp at, but I want to make one or two criticisms why the Supplementary Estimate is as it is. I am not, however, suggesting, prices and costs being at their present level, that there is any ground to complain because the Minister is now asking for more money. The reason why prices and costs are at that level is, of course, another question.
The Minister ascribed a good deal of the £6 million to the increased cost of school meals, and with that we certainly shall not quarrel. During the early days of the Conservative Government there was a fall in the number taking school meals, and the official Conservative line was that that was due to the fact that there was more food about elsewhere so that fewer needed school meals. What conclusion is to be drawn from the fact that more school meals are now being taken is an interesting subject for inquiry, but for our part we think it is a good development.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary be able to tell us this? Will any part of the increased expenditure on school meals be spent on improving the conditions in which school meals are served? I am sure that he and his right hon. Friend are aware of the recent report brought out by the National Union of Teachers about the very unsatisfactory circumstances in which the important duty of serving and supervising school meals has to be carried on by so many teachers. Perhaps we can be told whether, as this extra money is being required for school meals, any of the evils described in that report are likely to be mitigated during the forthcoming year.
Let me turn to the words at the end of Subhead IIIC:
…a rise generally in the cost of goods and services.
That is to say, this extra money is partly necessary because prices all round are going up. It is just as well to remember that when there is any attempt to estimate the cost of education to the nation. If we consider the extent by which the education estimates have risen in the last four years we find, if we take as our measuring rod the Interim Index of Retail Prices, that rather more than one-third of the increase in the estimates has been due solely to the rise in prices, and that that does not indicate any real expansion of the service. It is important that anyone who is reviewing future central or local educational expenditure with a critical eye should remember that fact.
I have reason to believe that the rise in the prices of the kinds of things local education authorities have to buy has been greater than the average rise in prices. Let us consider, first, items other

than books. I have seen a survey made by the process of making a schedule of items of educational stationery and supplies and taking every tenth article so as to get a sample from the resulting list. Quite interesting facts appear—first, that the average rise in price in the last two years is 20 per cent.; secondly, that there is not an item in that list that has gone down in price or even stayed where it was: they have all gone up more or less.
To take some of the more striking examples, the cost of a box of pieces of chalk has gone up by 21 per cent., and bottles of ink have gone up by 35 per cent. Those are what, I think, even the severest critic of public education would admit to be part of the essential fabric of education. Nobody suggests that chalk and ink are extravagant frills. A pair of compasses costs 28 per cent. more than it did two years ago; T-squares cost 36 per cent. more. As I say, over the whole range the rise is about 20 per cent.
While we on this side will certainly recommend the Committee to approve this Supplementary Estimate, it is worth noticing that one of the reasons why we cannot get more value out of the money spent on education is what is happening generally about prices—the reasons for which have been so ably described from these benches in the last two days.
Finally, I wish to focus attention on one particular item—books—the price of which has gone up and is likely to go up further during this year. To judge from a recent article in Education we may expect a rise of anything from 10 to 25 per cent, during the coming few months. The average expenditure on books over the whole public education system for primary and secondary schools is only 8s. per child per year. Since, in the secondary schools, it is decidedly higher, it means that in the primary schools we have a very low figure indeed.
I have recently been able to examine the book expenditure of a primary school where, owing to a fortunate assemblage of circumstances, it was possible to spend as much as 12s. a year per child on books. It was perfectly clear that even with that 12s., without wasting a penny, one could provide no more than was really necessary for the proper provision of that primary school with text books alone. If library provision were to be made one would need, without any extravagance,


20s. a year in a primary school. Yet the nation spends on an average only 8s. per child per year on primary and secondary schools together, and the increasing price of books will make that situation worse.
I have tried to suggest that this Supplementary Estimate, narrow as it appears to be, opens the door to many interesting questions, some of which I have attempted to put. My hon. Friends will no doubt put others. The Estimate throws into high relief one of the facts of the inflationary situation—that it is a matter which affects not only the individual in the family, but the cost and efficiency of our public services.

4.12 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I should like to draw attention to a small but, I think, significant item in the Supplementary Estimate. I refer to the additional sums under Subheads A.1 and B.1. Although they amount to only £55,000 between them out of a total of £4,698,000 they are, as the Committee is aware, matched by corresponding items in almost every Supplementary Estimate now coming before Parliament. I therefore think it right to take this, the first, opportunity of saying a few words about them.
As the Minister has explained, the extra money is needed in consequence of the increased salaries which were awarded to the Civil Service last summer. I should like to make it perfectly plain that I certainly do not oppose the increases in themselves. Government Departments demand a high quality of administration and, of course, the Ministry of Education is no exception; and we all recognise that we have to pay for quality. About 40 per cent. of the money under Subhead A.1 goes to the clerical and typing grades.
I do not think that anyone would doubt that there are many well-qualified men and women who not only deserve this increase, but are very poorly paid even after it has been granted. That is even more true of those civil servants who fall within the executive classes, which make up a substantial proportion of the total. These men are the real backbone of the administration. It is they who have built its great reputation, and without them a great Department like the Ministry of Education could not function at all.
However, it is one thing to support increased salaries and quite another to accept without challenge that these need involve higher expenditure. I would have hoped that the moment my right hon. Friend learned of the new salary awards he would have instructed his Permanent Secretary to seek to offset higher salaries by a reduction in the number employed in his Ministry and thus obviate the necessity for these two items in the Supplementary Estimate.
Economy is one of the dominating needs of the hour, and if we are to maintain the standards and quality of our education services we must fight against this tendency for their administration and inspection to cost more and more Public administration is a varying priority. Some of it is essential to policy. I do not think that it would be in order for me to challenge that and I do not wish to do so, but, by common consent, there is a fairly big range of public administration which falls under the category of being desirable rather than essential. There is another category which some people would describe as mere luxury. When a thing costs more, the prudent man makes up his mind to do with a little less of it.
It is no doubt in the Government's mind and in the mind of my right hon. Friend to apply this salutary principle to the Ministry of Education. In this connection, the Prime Minister's recent pledge that he would aim at reducing the numbers of civil servants by from 10,000 to 15,000—and let us hope that it is 15,000—is most welcome. But how is that to apply to the Ministry of Education? Is it intended that the reductions now aimed at will bring the Vote back to its original total? I recognise that very great efforts have been made already and have been fruitful up to a point. A glance at the main Estimate provides evidence of the success which has already attended the efforts to keep down the numbers, but I imagine that most of the reductions so far have been the result of the patient work of the inspecting teams of the Treasury and of the Organisation and Methods Division.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if further worthwhile reductions are to be made they can only be made as a result of the personal intervention of the Minister and of his Permanent Secretary. Would my right hon. Friend, therefore,


consider placing the Organisation and Methods Division under the direct control of his establishment officers and thereby make it personally responsible to him? In short, I am asking for an undertaking that if expenditure under these subheads cannot be reduced, it shall at least be stabilised whatever the future trend of salaries.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I hope that the Minister will resist the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) for a minor Geddes Act, no matter how small it may be. We should realise that this Supplementary Estimate must be judged in relation to the original Estimate, which in itself was cut to the bone as a result of Government pressure and policy at the time.
Many worthwhile, desirable schemes had to go by the board last year. This increase of just over £4½ million merely keeps the Estimate up with rising costs. It brings about no expansion of the education services, whereas most of us would have liked to have seen last year an extension of education in order to maintain our place in education with the United States, Russia and other nations.
The Minister seemed to be apologising for the fact that he had to submit this Supplementary Estimate. I speak for myself and, I think, for most of my hon. and right hon. Friends when I say that he need not apologise for the fact that he is having to ask for more money for education this year than was anticipated. In fact, many of us would have wished the Supplementary Estimate to have been much bigger than it is. For instance, if equal pay had been implemented in three or four stages instead of seven, and if we had agreed last year to an all-round rise in pay, these Supplementary Estimates would have had to be bigger and they would have had our support. The Minister told us that the present one does not include technical colleges and building. The assumption I make from that statement is that there has been a lag in the expenditure on those two items and that the Minister has not been able to spend in the past year what he anticipated spending on both those items, which is regrettable.
We were also told that the increase for inspectors is not due to any new ones being appointed, but to increases in salary. I should have thought that with the operation of Part III of the Education Act, and the preparations for it which must have been going on in the past year, it would have been necessary to have made provision in this Supplementary Estimate for an increase in the inspectorate. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me whether he proposes to do this work with the same number of inspectors as he has at present, or whether it is intended to increase the numbers in view of the extra work involved?
I regard school meals as vitally important. The Minister stated that there had been a greater increase in the number of children taking these during this year than was anticipated, but I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether that figure has now reached the level at which it was before the price was put up to 9d. I do not think it has. I think it is about 55 per cent. of the figure before the last increase in the price of school meals. If, as we are told, it is 48 per cent., that is unsatisfactory and I would like more information.
The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of buildings, such as kitchens, for the provision of school meals. There again, I believe that instead of an advance there has been practically a standstill in the provision of extra accommodation and better facilities for this purpose. In this respect, could the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the increase is due to the higher cost of food, and whether the number of children receiving free meals, as opposed to those paying for them, has increased over what was anticipated?
We must look carefully at the question of special responsibility when we consider the grant of £6 million to the local education authorities for pay and wages. Here, I must declare an indirect interest in the differentials between head teachers and other positions of special responsibility. There is grave dissatisfaction among head teachers that they have not kept their differentials. Has the Minister had drawn to his attention the report of the Middlesbrough Head Teachers' Association, which points out clearly that it is hardly worth while a teacher taking


on the extra responsibilities of a headship when the differential between that and the special responsibility is so small?
Many authorities now are having to advertise, re-advertise and advertise again scientific and technical posts. My own local authority is spending hundreds of pounds on advertising, so far without any replies. I should like to know to what extent under part-time expenditure, money has been spent upon bringing in people from industry to teach scientific and technical subjects in our schools. We were promised that there would be some advance made during this year and I wonder whether any significant approach has been made to industry. The Minister also dealt with the question of part-time women teachers. I am particularly interested to know the amount of this Supplementary Estimate which is going to the part-time teachers occupied in other professions.
My last point, arising from a difficulty in my own constituency, deals with secretarial assistance. We all know what a tremendous help the school secretary is to a head teacher in dealing with the many different details of administration. Yet there is a move to cut down considerably on secretarial assistance and in one case I know, two schools, five or six miles apart, have to share one secretary, an arrangement which is not working out well. I would be grateful for some information on that matter, also.
I have said already that I had hoped the Minister would have brought in an even larger Supplementary Estimate than this one. Education ought to be an expanding service and we ought not to be satisfied to keep it at its present level. Indeed, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not looking round for any major economy cuts in this service.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). He was not asking for a minor Geddes axe, but merely that Subheads A.1 and B.1 of this Supplementary Estimate should be stabilised at the present figure.
My right hon. Friend has already warned us that the cost of education will increase year by year, and the atmosphere in this House since I have been in it has shown me how difficult it is for any Gov

ernment to achieve stabilisation. Each day about half the Questions on the Order Paper, whether on education or any other subject, ask for an increase in services, and there is also pressure in this respect on hon. Members from their constituents. Indeed, when they write asking for an increase in the services, constituents often couple with it a request for a reduction in taxation.
Again, speakers in our debates on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates ask for various increases in services which require increased expenditure. Yet we find on referring to past Estimates that the numbers of civil servants employed by the Ministries have doubled over the past twenty years. We also find that the amount of money spent on education has gone up about six times. Allowing for the fall in the value of money, which has been such that we might have expected the amount spent on education to have tripled in order to achieve the same results, the fact that this expenditure has gone up six times over that period shows that today we are making double the call on the resources of the nation for education that we were making twenty years ago.

Mr. Ross: How much have the resources of the nation gone up?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In spite of the fact that there is double the call on the nation's resources for education, the throughput of Students has not doubled, nor is there double the educational output.

Dr. Horace King: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the percentage cost of education of the national income this year, even with this Supplementary Estimate, is less than it was in the last year before the war?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It has gone up by £16 million as compared with a year ago—

Mr. James Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: No, Sir. I am sorry I cannot do so.
The short point I wanted to make was that in our debates on the Estimates or Supplementary Estimates every hon. Member calls on the Minister to do this, that, and more and more. There are


hon. Members, on both sides of the House I hope, who have in mind the needs of the taxpayers and are trying to represent the general public as a whole, and we may hope that these great figures, instead of vastly increasing year by year, will be stabilised in the way that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North has suggested.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I want briefly to deal with four minor points arising out of the Supplementary Estimate. The first concerns inspectors. I suppose they are necessary, but I regard them as the biggest obstacle to educational advance. However, I suppose we cannot object to the expenditure of public money in that direction.
A matter which I have previously raised at Question Time is the type of inspector sent to infants' schools. I am not criticising the Inspectorate generally, because the individuals are remarkably well selected nowadays, but it is a bit thick to select a young man from a grammar school or public school who has very little teaching experience and send him to inspect work at infants' schools. In the North-East, last week, I was given an instance of the sort of silly thing that happens. An inspector visited a very good infants' school, and asked, "Why are the children writing on the lines? Why not let them write under the lines, letting the top of the word touch the bottom of the line, for a change?" In no other branch of the education service is technique so highly specialised and so excellent as in the infants' schools. A certain number of inspectors ought to be selected from young, progressive head teachers of infants' schools.
Another point is the age of retirement of inspectors. Why does the Minister force inspectors to retire at 60? They have a very pleasant, congenial life, and they are in their prime at 60. The Minister will shortly be implementing the part of the 1944 Act dealing with the registration and inspection of private schools, and I should have thought that he would need all the inspectors he could get. A very good inspector in the North-East who was forced to retire at 60 has returned to teaching, the subject being mathematics in a grammar school. That is not

a bad thing, of course, and I think all inspectors should return to teaching at times. It is silly to force inspectors to retire at 60 if they want to continue, especially as the Minister has altered the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill to enable teachers to carry on to the age of 70.
My next point is about special allowances. We are all glad that two bad old differentials have gone. The first is that relating to the type of school. Nobody could defend it. Teaching in infants' and primary schools is just as important as teaching in grammar schools, and it is often a great deal more difficult in infants' and primary schools. A great deal of pressure is being applied to the Minister to reintroduce a special basic salary scale for teachers in grammar schools, but I hope he will set his face resolutely against that. Let us not go back to the days when we had a special salary scale for a special type of school. Let us retain one basic salary scale and vary it. We are also very pleased that the sex differential is going.
The three other differentials relate to qualification, responsibility and experience. I do not believe that the basic salary scale is weighted sufficiently for those three matters, especially the responsibility of a head teacher. There is very little incentive for an assistant master in a grammar school to apply for the headship of a modern school. There ought to be interchange in both directions, but at the moment an assistant teacher in a grammar school with a special responsibility allowance of £120 or £150 per annum is hardly likely to apply for a headship for which the allowance is very little more than he is at present getting.
There is a tremendous need for more science teachers in modern schools, but they do not need such high academic qualifications as those required by grammar schools. The sort of man we want to teach science in a modern school is the man who can beg an old motor car engine, perhaps from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), set it up in the laboratory and take it to bits. That is the sort of man who can be trained in science in the training colleges.
Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and I, and, should imagine, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), received a circular from a well-known training college, inviting us to subscribe towards the building


of a science laboratory. This is really too bad. The need for science facilities is so serious and so important that it cannot be left to charity of this kind. Far more facilities should be provided in training colleges so that they may supply science teachers for modern schools.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the need for more supply teachers. There is in their case a superannuation injustice which is not dealt with by the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. At the end of a year's teaching the supply teacher will have paid the same amount in superannuation contributions as a full-time teacher, but he will be credited with only 200 days for superannuation purposes. He ought to be given sufficient superannuation credits to place him on an equal footing in the end with the permanent teacher.

Mr. Ross: That is done in Scotland.

Mr. Short: I understand that it is done in Scotland, or is to be done in Scotland, but it is not done in England and Wales. This is a small point, but it would be an incentive to supply teachers to carry on.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to talk in the House of Commons on Estimates. If I go outside the bounds to which I ought to restrict myself, Sir Rhys, I hope you will forgive me. No doubt you will bring me back.
At some time in the near future the whole question of education finance will need to be completely overhauled—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The whole question of education finance cannot be dealt with on this Vote. All that hon. Members can deal with is expenditure coming within the sum of £4,698,000.

Mr. Jennings: I will try to deal with matters under the respective headings, Sir Rhys.
I wish to draw attention to the matter of school meals. We ought to look forward to the time when the school meals service will be completely separate from the school. It is in that respect that education finance will have to be overhauled. Having left school work not long ago, I am particularly concerned about conditions relating to the serving of meals. When one is teaching until mid-day in

a school, particularly a country school which has, perhaps, three rooms and very little ancillary accommodation for kitchen purposes, and one has to clear the desks, set up tables and let in the people who are to serve the meals—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the only thing that can be dealt with on the subject of school meals is the rise in the cost of school meals.

Mr. Jennings: We are told by my right hon. Friend that the Estimates are up by £2½ million for school meals; and that the Exchequer charge will be £31 million. Within the bounds of this extra finance, we ought to see that the conditions in the schools are suitable for the teachers and service people to work with reasonable amenities.
On the question of allowances, I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), and here I cast my mind back to the time when we had what was called the Burham pool before the war, when one or two members of a large staff were paid extra sums out of the pool. Nothing is more likely to cause jealousy and internal divisions in a staff than this vicious system of allowances. I am very pleased that the Minister is to keep the question under review, and that this aspect of it will be looked into.
The thing that worries me most in the present set-up is the position of the secondary modern school teacher. Under the present system, it is perfectly obvious that we are developing the secondary modern school as the kingpin of our educational system. If we are to have special allowances for grammar schools, which may deprive the secondary modern schools of good teaching material, we ought to look very carefully at the position.
Again, to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central about infants' schools, if it is logical and reasonable to give highly qualified people in grammar schools and secondary modern schools extra allowances, I can think of nobody who needs more skill and qualifications than does the girl in an infants' class, particularly in a country school, teaching children from five to seven years of age. There is no


one who deserves more consideration on the subject of special allowances.
On the question of the allowances granted to schools for books, I have in mind a small country school in which the head is given a requisition allowance for a school of 80 or 90 mixed children, ranging from infants to children of eleven. From an authority which is not ungenerous, he receives about £85, out of which to buy everything—stationery, apparatus, and all the rest. It is an absolute headache for a head to have to try year by year to apportion out of that small sum what he should spend in the way of books.
I may be out of order on my next point, but I am preparing the way. We are told by my right hon. Friend that the education service is an expanding service. In the very nature of things, it is bound to be in our modern civilisation, but I think we must look at the whole question of finance. I am going to risk raising just one more point. I am positively convinced, after years of experience in the educational service, that this expanding service will soon be an overstrain on the local authorities. I think I have said enough to indicate the point I am making. We must examine very carefully every aspect of the problem.
I am very grateful for the indulgence of the Committee. I feel that hon. Members on both sides will agree that the money spent on education is well spent, and I join with other hon. Members who have said that they do not grudge this extra sum.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: When the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) was drawing towards the close of his speech, I thought he was going to put up a defence of the additional money required in grants for the training of teachers. Apparently, this would seem to him to be a very necessary expenditure in which the Government ought to indulge, particularly in regard to village schools.
The reason why I intervene in the debate is because I think it is time that someone came to the rescue of the Minister himself and saved him from his friends. Those of us who have been listening to the debate have been extremely sorry to see what appears to

be the ugly head of retrenchment rearing itself in this Chamber, for the first time for a good many years in education debates.
Particularly was I sorry to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), with whom many of us have associated very progressive ideas, particularly where certain services are concerned. We are not, of course, so surprised when we listen to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke); indeed, our surprise would probably be the other way—if the hon. Gentleman did not get up to support his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. We wonder what his attitude will be on certain other Estimates which will come before the House in due course.
One point which the Minister made in his defence of these Supplementary Estimates, which we frankly accept as necessary, was that education is an expanding service. We cannot stop it; it will go on expanding, whatever we think about it. But we must examine the Estimates with care. I want to refer to one point mentioned by the hon. Member for Burton. I believe that there are certain circumstances in which the Minister could be even more generous in the grants to local authorities for the school meals service.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Burton that we need to separate this service from the school itself. Indeed, in a modern school especially, a great advantage arises from the fact that this service is provided within the school itself. It is an advantage not only from the point of view of feeding the children but from that of teaching as well, since the same kitchen may be used for domestic science training for the scholars in that school.
I am wondering just what amount of money would be involved in this Estimate and what the attitude of the Ministry might be if we were providing an even larger grant to local authorities for the provision of school meals in certain circumstances. We are having a huge house building programme in the country, and there must be many hon. Members who are aware of the movement of many thousands of the population to the outskirts of large cities.
I am thinking particularly of my own constituency, where many thousands of


families have been moved some miles out to the fringe of the city. Until such time as new schools are erected on these estates, and particularly secondary modern schools as distinct from primary schools, the children of these people will probably have to travel considerable distances to a secondary modern school.
The instance which I have in mind was brought to my notice, when I was coming up here on the train, by a ticket collector. I will not tell the Committee what he told me to do to the then Minister of Education, but it was not very polite. He pointed out that he was a railway employee on a very low basic rate of pay. He had three children over 11 years of age who had to attend a secondary modern school which was just under three miles from their homes. In other words, they had no transport assistance. The man therefore had to make the choice either of paying for those three children to return home at lunch time, or paying for them to have school meals. The school meals meant an expense of 11s. 3d. a week and the bus fares cost him 5s. a week.

The Deputy-Chairman: This part of the hon. Member's speech is directed to a change in policy.

Mr. Wilkins: What I am suggesting is that on this side of the Committee we would welcome an increase in the Supplementary Estimate, if it were applied to additional concessions for school meals which the Minister told us were incorporated.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to discuss a change of policy upon this Vote which is merely an increase of the Vote itself.

Mr. Wilkins: In that case, Sir Rhys, there is very little more I want to say, except that we welcome the fact that the Minister has made this additional provision, rather than curtail the education service.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: There is a sense of urgency in the Chamber. I can almost feel the presence of Scottish Members, so I shall not be too long, but I want to take up something that was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr.

Gresham Cooke) has gone, but I ask his colleague the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), whom we welcome to our ranks in education debates, to convey to the hon. Member for Twickenham that not merely are we allocating to education less, as a percentage on our national expenditure than in 1939, but we are allocating to education less as a percentage of national outlay than we did fifty years ago. Fifty years ago we spent a larger slice of the national cake on education than we shall in 1956.
I want to refer to differentials, particularly for science and mathematics teachers. The Minister has gone. We know why, so we shall not be unkind, but I want to say that he was a little optimistic in thinking that he was holding a line in this matter of specialists, scientists and mathematicians, particularly in sixth forms. That is not my experience. I think that we shall have to offer more than we are now giving if we want to hold them in our schools and not let them go to industrial establishments to which they are now going in large numbers.
I have talked to chairmen of governors and others and my impression is by no means that of the Minister. I have said before that the bulge in secondary schools will come in 1958 and that we shall need more science teachers than we now have. We therefore have to think of the future, let alone holding a line now—and I do not think we are doing that. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some figures, or something more substantial than a mere impression as did the Minister. We want to know what the position is, particularly in girls' schools, because my information is that men have to teach science and mathematics to the upper forms of girls' schools and, of course, that time has to be taken from the time-table of their own boys' grammar schools.
All the physicists who leave the universities of the United Kingdom will supply only the needs of atomic energy, let alone the needs of other establishments and the need for specialist teachers in sixth forms. Does the Minister think that to pay the money we are now paying to specialist teachers is a good thing? I want to corroborate the view of the hon. Member for Burton that that is causing a good deal of jealousy among teachers in staff rooms and even causing ill-feeling, to say


no more, among the teachers in secondary modern schools. The more that the wage ceiling is lifted and differences increased, the more secondary modern teachers are convinced that we are returning to the old set-up of before the war, when there was a difference between different kinds of teachers in different kinds of schools. It is important that secondary modern teachers should feel that they are given a fair deal.
I want to go beyond that. The Minister will be forced to have more and bigger payments for special allowances for teachers undertaking advanced work. Scientists who go to universities to take science degrees, go there to study science in order later to work in industry. They do not primarily go there as potential teachers. Before the war we had so many of our scientists teaching in grammar schools, because there was unemployment and they could not get jobs in industry. Today, with full employment, scientists are being called away and we shall have to compete and pay larger allowances to hold them in the grammar schools.

Dr. King: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should pay special allowances only for or especially for science? Does that not go against his argument that all subjects are important?

Mr. Johnson: Of course. I merely wanted to pose to the Minister his inexorable dilemma and to say that with his Tory philosophy he would be forced into that course. If he wants scientists to stay in schools, he will have to pay higher differentials to hold them there. That is not a good thing. I am coming to the view that, as with the Army and recruitment pre-war, we can keep our teachers only when we have unemployment. We can get recruiting for the Army only when there is unemployment. But in times of full employment the Minister is in the dilemma of having to offer science specialists more and bigger differentials if he wants to keep them, and I would like his views on that.

Mr. Jennings: How does the hon. Member reconcile his first statement about the jealousies caused by special allowances and his second statement about giving special allowances to science teachers?

Mr. Johnson: I am putting my questions to the Minister, and not answering questions put by Members opposite. I see for them an enormous dilemma, but I should like the Minister to tell me how he will get out of it, other than paying these allowances. I do not agree with that course, because it causes jealousy and misunderstanding. But he will be forced into it, if he wants sufficient science specialists to stay in the teaching profession when there is full employment and when they are being pulled away to industrial establishments.

Mr. Jennings: I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Member was first arguing against special allowances and then pleading for special allowances for science teachers.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I intervene only to pose to the Minister a couple of questions which I have been specifically requested to ask. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) posed the dilemma with great impartiality, and I entirely sympathise with those teachers who may well feel that they are to be regarded as of lesser stature than the brilliant scientists whom we need for the country's future. May I say emphatically that I believe that the dilemma can be resolved, only by a clear lead from the Government. I hope that the Government will be firmly in favour of a differential and for giving that increased status to scientists, because I believe that in no other way can the needs of education be met.
I have come to that view after very careful consideration. I have spoken to large audiences of teachers and I have told them emphatically that that was the view I would take and which I hoped the Government will take, although due appreciation should be given to the powerful arguments given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) and by other hon. Members.

Dr. King: The hon. Member has made a very serious statement. Is he aware that although both grammar school and non-grammar school teachers are bitterly divided upon many matters, the whole of the teaching profession—teachers in grammar schools, secondary modern schools and primary schools, and


even some of the science masters themselves—would be unanimously opposed to the proposal which he makes?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I should expect that, except for science teachers, the teaching profession would be united in opposition. It is exactly that conflict of views which the Committee must bear in mind. At the same time, we must look primarily to the interests of education generally.
I belong to a profession where the differentials are very great, and in respect of which there is a great need for a specialised education. An analogy can be drawn from this profession, in that the tax lawyer is much more highly paid than other lawyers. At the moment, we must have scientific men of ability, but we cannot get them upon the ordinary rates of pay of teachers. We have not a chance of getting them—as the hon. Member for Rugby showed so clearly—unless we pay for them. We must face the necessity of their being given a higher rate of pay, and possibly even a higher status, than the other teachers. They enjoy a higher status in industry. This is a clear-cut issue, which the Committee must face.
I really rose to ask the Minister about the question of school meals, which forms a substantial part of the Supplementary Estimate relating to goods and services. Can the Minister tell us to what extent his Ministry gives guidance to a school on the question whether it should subcontract its school meal services—if I may use that loose phrase—to private contractors who are able to provide meals of equivalent substance and cooking standards, and which are equally agreeable, at a lower cost than can be offered by the school? Has the Minister considered whether private contractors could provide a better service in the villages? Can the Minister expatiate generally upon the administration of that service and say whether there is any room for economy without reducing standards?

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: There are two points to which I wish to refer. One has already been elaborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and the other concerns the question of the provision of books in schools, as affected by their increased cost

—which question has also received some attention in earlier speeches.
My fear is that as a result of the differentials now being paid, secondary modern schools will find great difficulty in recruiting science teachers. At present, those are the schools where teachers of science—well-equippd not merely to teach science dogmatically, but to inculcate the scientific spirit into pupils; which is a great deal more important—can best be employed. It is in those schools that we find pupils who have missed success in the secondary school examination at 11 years of age but still include, among their better elements, a fairly high standard of intellectual attainment and ability. They are the people whom we shall want to help fill technical and technological schools, in relation to which we understand that the Minister of Education is going to devote a great deal of attention during the coming years.
I have referred in a previous speech to the fact that I was recently in a secondary modern school in Middlesex. There, I found a group of children who were taking a General Certificate of Education, mainly in applied science. In a county where the competition for grammar school places is very high they represented a substantial proportion of children who were being taught in a school which, according to the ridiculous set of standards which we now have, is regarded as having a lower status than a grammar school.
Fortunately, in that school those children were getting what they needed, namely, a training in scientific method as well as in applied science, to serve the needs of industries which had grown up in the neighbourhood. It would have been all the better if, before they went into local factories, the more intelligent of them could have had some time in a technical school of a very advanced kind.
At present, the differentials which are being paid in grammar schools are drawing away from secondary modern schools any men or women who can show that they are successful in dealing with the type of child about whom I am talking. We do not want further to reinforce the idea of the parent that if his child goes into a secondary modern school he must abandon all hope of any real further education. I believe that a great amount of good human raw material, from the point of view of science, will


be found in the top forms of secondary modern schools, and I hope that nothing will be done by the Ministry to deprive those schools of the kind of staff which will prepare that material for really advanced studies.
I now turn to the problem of books. Here, we are getting back almost to the conditions which existed in schools which I knew in my early days. In the school in which I was taught we had only one reading book throughout the whole year, and when the day of the annual inspection arrived every boy knew every word in that book, and did not need to read at all. In fact, the inspector used to walk around the class watching the boys to make quite certain that they were following in the book what the other boys were reading.
The reduction in the number of books available, and in the width of interest provided by those books, which is inevitable with their increased price, seriously handicaps the schools. I hope that what the Minister said this afternoon is an indication that this problem is being borne in mind in the Ministry. One cannot expect that every reading book will be of equal interest to every child in a class. In the case of textbooks, there is a need for a variety of treatment even in the same class, because of the width of attainment existing in that class.
One of the problems of the small school is that, notwithstanding the fact that the classes are slightly smaller than those in big schools, they have within them a much wider range of attainment. In a big school forms can be grouped so as to get greater uniformity in attainment in any given group of children, but that is not possible in a small school.
The present cost of books makes it almost impossible to get together for, let us say, a class of 40 children, a group of books which will have a wide range of appeal, especially to those children who now obtain so much general information from radio or television programmes. There is now so easy an access to a smattering of knowledge—not very deep, but very wide—which does not feel that it wants to be reinforced by reading, that it is advisable that there should be available for the child books in the class library from which he can get information and leading on any point in which his interest has been aroused by the much

easier access to general knowledge which is now available in almost every home after school hours.
All my teaching friends tell me that there is hardly a subject one can mention in school now on which the first retort from a class is not, "We heard about that on the wireless," or, "We saw it on the television last week." But what they hear and see in those conditions does not give them the grounding unless it can be followed up by good books, especially books of reference, and at the present cost of these books it is almost outside the range of practically every school to do anything worth while to make provision.
I trust that the Ministry will give special attention to the class libraries which should be available in every classroom and from which children can get an acquaintanceship with elementary books of reference which will enable them to carry on their education for themselves after they have left school. I hope that the Ministry will pay special attention to the two points I have mentioned.

5.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Both the rules of order and the interests of Scotland prevent me from following fully some of the interesting suggestions which have been made.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the interests of Scotland are not confined to a discussion of Scottish matters. I hope he will appreciate that the amount of money spent under this Estimate determines the amount spent on education in Scotland. He ought, in courtesy, to allow Scottish Members an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Vosper: I do not think that there is anything to stop a Scottish Member speaking after I sit down. I was saying that I did not intend to follow fully some of the interesting points which have been made. I will not follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) on the effects of inflation on the education service, except to say that the effects were not of course felt only in the last two years. Nor do I intend to comment on the interesting remarks of one of my hon. Friends about the financing of the education service.
I thought that some hon. Members were at times confusing the Supplementary Estimates with the original


Estimates. As I understand it, this debate takes place only on what is additional to the original Estimate for 1955–56. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) said that he was disappointed at the progress—or the development—in technical education. My only reason for not discussing that question is that it does not arise on this debate, as the original Estimate was sufficiently generous and comprehensive to include all the development that has taken place. If the hon. Member is specially interested in that subject, I assure him that he will not have to wait for many days before he receives some encouraging news.
It would be best if, rather than replying to each individual speech, I tried to wind up the debate by dealing with subjects generally. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Rhys, ruled the hon. Member for Fulham out of order when he referred to savings. I think I might follow the hon. Member to this extent. The savings on the Youth Service arise from the fact that some voluntary organisations have not been able to respond quickly enough to our offer of grants. There is no intention to reduce the value of the service.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) referred to the costs of administration. My right hon. Friend, in introducing this Estimate, made it quite clear that this additional cost arises not from an increase in numbers but from an increase in remuneration. In the calendar year 1955 there were two increases affecting most grades of the Civil Service, and they became operative from 1st July. They are responsible for the increase of £55,000 which is mentioned in this Estimate.
My two hon. Friends may be interested in the size of the Ministry of Education today. The actual figures in the original Estimate, upon which there has been an increase for remuneration, were 1,668 in the Ministry itself, 547 in the inspectorate and 833 in the two museums under my right hon. Friend's control. That makes a total of 3,048, but the numbers in employment on 1st February this year, mainly on account of unfilled vacancies, were down to 2,984. I make the further comment, in reply to my two hon.

Friends, that that is a considerable reduction over the size of the Ministry at its peak development in 1949, when the total staff rose to 3,596.
I would make the further point that over the last few years the proportion of the total education Vote devoted to administration has shown a continuous decrease. The number of staff will show a further small decrease in the Estimates for the coming year. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short)—and I believe he was in order—raised the question of inspectors, as did the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. An increase of inspectors is not necessary at the moment, because Part III of the Education Act, 1944, does not come into operation until next year and, therefore, could not feature in this Estimate, but consideration is being given to the point.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central was not correct when he said that it was my right hon. Friend's general rule that all inspectors must retire at the age of 60. Different individuals receive different treatment in that respect. If the hon. Member has a specific example in mind, perhaps he will bring it to my notice.
The hon. Member for Fulham—and I believe he was the only one—referred to the addition of £9,000 on the cost of education for Poles. That arises, as I think he appreciates, simply and solely on account of the increase in the grants for universities and places of further education. It is exactly comparable to that provided in another part of the Supplementary Estimate for British students. He asked me what was the future of the service for the education of Poles. Of course it is the constant aim of the Committee for the Education of Poles to enable Polish children to become assimilated into the British community. That has resulted in an increase in cost under ordinary local authority arrangements and a decrease under this heading of the Ministry Vote.
There are about 13,000 Polish children in British schools and a very much smaller and continually decreasing number in the special schools for Polish people only. I should not on this occasion like to indicate to the hon. Member a date by which all Polish children will be assimilated in ordinary schools, but I think that our policy is progressing in


accordance with the wishes of the Committee set up to study the problem.
Again, I think that the hon. Member for Fulham was the only one to raise the rather important matter of adult education. He asked me two questions. The first was whether I had any information about the local authority provision of accommodation. On this Supplementary Estimate I can give him no information about that. Indeed, no information has come to hand, but I have no reason to suppose that local authorities are being niggardly and are not taking some notice of the recommendation of the Ashby Committee.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the setting up of a committee, which was one of the recommendations of the Ashby Committee. He must be under some misapprehension there, because in fact no committee has been set up. The developments which have taken place—

Mr. M. Stewart: I am afraid that I was misled by the phrase used by the Minister about the acceptance of the recommendations of the Ashby Committee.

Mr. Vosper: The Minister did accept the recommendations of the Committee, in a statement to Parliament last year, and I think that on that occasion he said that he did not intend to set up that committee. It is with the agreement of responsible bodies that the committee has not been set up.
I was going to say that the developments which have flown from the acceptance of that Report, and which are responsible for practically the whole of the increase in this Supplementary Estimate of £36,000, have resulted from the negotiations between my right hon. Friend and the responsible bodies. They arise principally from the extension or expansion of the work involved and from increases in the salaries of full-time and part-time tutors. In one or two areas, in particular on the North-East Coast and in the western area of the Workers' Educational Association, there have been considerable expansions.
Many hon. Members, in fact most who took part in the debate, referred to the question of special allowances. There is little that I can add to what my right hon. Friend has already said, especially as the whole matter is quite obviously under

consideration by the Burnham Committee at the moment. Certainly, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will not expect me to give them a lead on this occasion. I have no doubt that members of that Committee pay attention to what is said in this House from time to time, and will especially do so on an occasion such as this, when many important and valuable contributions have been made.
The fact that there is a Supplementary Estimate on this item is because on this occasion, at any rate, local authorities have fully measured up to the recommendations of the Committee in this respect, which was not the case on previous occasions. One or two hon. Members referred in particular to the secondary modern schools. Again, without wishing in any way to give a lead to the Burnham Committee, the problem—as my right hon. Friend indicated in response to an intervention—is a very real one which arises from the success of this policy of special allowances.
I think it was the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees who referred to the "plight"—I am not sure whether that was the word he used—of headmasters and headmistresses. I realise that the hon. Member has a close interest in this problem. Again, without wishing to influence the Burnham Committee, I cannot but believe that that is a matter which it will have in mind at the present time. There has been a great improvement in the take-up or use of the special allowances. Before this recommendation was put into effect only 48 per cent. of the money available in the area pool was used by local authorities. Now, under present arrangements, no less than 80 per cent. or 89 per cent. has been taken up, and the money available is a considerable increase over previous years.
As some hon. Members may know, during the autumn of last year my right hon. Friend had a survey made of what local authorities were doing on this point. That survey is now nearly complete and I think I may quote, as examples, that no fewer than 1,062 awards of between £250 and £300 per annum are being paid, and that the total number of teachers receiving some award under this provision has gone up to 17,365.

Dr. King: The Minister referred to a report which the Minister of Education hopes to get about the way in which local


authorities are carrying out this provision. This afternoon both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister said that most local authorities are interpreting it very generously. I hope that he will take action if some authorities are paying allowances under the minimum he had in mind.

Mr. Vosper: That, of course, was one of the reasons for obtaining this report, which is not yet complete, and my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind.
Hon. Members have commented on the whole idea and conception of this scheme and the method of operation. Again, I do not intend to say more than the fact that not only the scheme but the report on it which my right hon. Friend has received is now available to the Burnham Committee. When hon. Members refer—and one or two hon. Members did refer—to disputes and jealousies in the common room, I would say that this scheme is in its first year of operation, and I have no doubt that if the Committee decides to continue it in some form or other, it will work more easily in the second year than in the first year.

Mr. J. Johnson: Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee any evidence to support the statement that things are better, in the matter of staff, regarding specialist and science teachers? For example, can he tell us the number of vacancies? Has he any facts of that kind about the position of vacancies in secondary schools?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot answer a question about vacancies in a debate on this Supplementary Estimate. One thing that is in my mind, and it may have been in the mind of my right hon. Friend, is that no less than 75 per cent. of the men graduates in grammar schools are receiving special allowances. There are at least some indications of the beneficial effect on grammar schools of the special allowances. That is within my personal experience, as it may be within the experience of other hon. Members.
One or two questions relating to pay were raised. No one has disputed the beneficial effects of equal pay. That is responsible for the largest part of the increase under this Supplementary Estimate. It will be of interest to the Committee to know that even teachers on the lower scale, that is £405 per annum for

a woman teacher on entry, will have received an additional £6 9s. as a result of equal pay. The head mistress in a large grammar school may have received an extra £36 15s., and after the seven year period is fulfilled will receive an extra £257. These items are not inconsiderable, and are responsible for the greater part of this increase.
Almost every hon. Member referred to the school meals service. I am afraid that I do not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) about making an extra grant available to local authorities because, of course, local authorities already recoup 100 per cent. of the whole cost of the school meals service.

Mr. Wilkins: But many of them lose on administration.

Mr. Vosper: What the hon. Gentleman probably had in mind was whether it was possible for local authorities to be more generous in their interpretation of the free-meal policy. That is a matter for the discretion of each local authority, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should first pursue any particular case with his local authority, which has considerable discretion.

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I was ruled out of order when I was attempting to develop my case.

Mr. Vosper: This is a point which I will willingly discuss with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) asked about contracting out. I am afraid that I have no information on that point. It has seldom been tried out, but I will bear the hon. Members suggestion in mind. My experience is that it is unlikely, particularly in village schools, that it would be possible to produce, by contracting out, such an efficient service as is already provided by the average local authority.
Many hon. Members asked whether the increase in the cost of the school meals service included extra provision in the way of canteens or kitchens. It does. The Supplementary Estimate includes an extra 251 canteens provided during the year. That, again, is additional to what is provided for in the original Estimate. I cannot be so positive about improvement


in the canteen work but a considerable amount of improvement work was allowed for in the original Estimate.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred to the take-up of school meals. I agree that we have not yet got back to the figure which at its height was about 52 per cent., not 55 per cent. My right hon. Friend made the point that in this one year which has just concluded, the take-up has risen from 45·8 per cent. to 48·3 per cent. That is probably the biggest increase in any one year during recent years.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central asked about the pensions of part-time teachers—

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the school meals service, will he tell us whether any provision is made for increased costs due to Purchase Tax changes instituted by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Vosper: As I was trying to explain to the hon. Member for Bristol, South, the school meals service is financed 100 per cent. by the Government, and, therefore, any increase in the cost is taken care of automatically in assessing the unit cost.

Mr. Ross: But surely, in so far as we have to meet it out of the educational grant, we are entitled to know how much of the increased cost is due to Purchase Tax changes.

Mr. Vosper: The total increase in cost is £2·1 million over the year, which is additional to the original Estimate. Of this £1·2 million is an increase in the remuneration of the personnel concerned. The remaining £·9 million results from an increase in the cost of food, the extension of the service and the increased cost of equipment. This includes the factor which the hon. Member mentioned. I cannot give him on this occasion a further breakdown than that.
I was about to complete my remarks on the school meals service—

Mr. Blackburn: Does not the. Minister think that there are far too many items carried on the education Estimate which are not really related to education. I do not want to divorce the school meals service from the schools, but I think that it should be realised that this service is not really an educational matter, yet it

is being carried on the education Vote. My hon. Friend pointed out that the percentage of the national income being spent on education is no better now than it was fifty years ago, but we have added several things, such as the school meals service. Does not the Minister agree that it would be better if this amount of money for the school meals service could be carried on the Vote of another Department?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has been very successful in making his point, but I think that I should be out of order if I followed him on that interesting topic. I am prepared to debate with him and his hon. Friends on another occasion the suggestion that the proportion of the national income devoted to education has fallen since 1938 or any previous year. It is very easy to make figures prove anything one wishes. I could produce a very good argument to show that the reverse has taken place.

Mr. J. Johnson: I have asked about this at Question Time and I had an answer by the former Minister of Education, who answered affirmatively that this was the case.

Mr. Vosper: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question and I may be able to give him a more favourable reply.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde intervened during the speech of my right hon. Friend to suggest that some of his utterances or suggestions were having an adverse effect on recruitment. Although that does not directly arise on this Estimate, it is important to note that the applications for places next year at training colleges are at a higher rate than ever before, and that the training colleges themselves are fuller than they were at this time last year.

Mr. Blackburn: The Minister does me too much honour. It was not an intervention which I made.

Mr. Vosper: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Fulham and the right hon. Member for South Shields referred most appropriately to the provision of books, particularly for school libraries and class libraries. I think that


the Committee will agree that in the course of last year my right hon. Friend went to considerable trouble to encourage the provision of books, and it is a fact that the inspectorate has been asked to pay particular attention to that problem. In my weekend study of the educational magazines, I find that each week they tell of some local authority which has made increasingly generous provision in that respect, and I share the view of the Committee that that expansion and extension is highly necessary and should continue.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred to secretarial staffs in schools. There is nothing which arises on this Supplementary Estimate which enables me to discuss his suggestion that there has been any decrease under that heading.
Finally, I think that the opinion of the Committee is that this Estimate is justified because it arises from items which could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was made. I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham and the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East are satisfied that the reasons for the increase are good ones. That is certainly my view. I should like to think that the Committee is also of the opinion that the Estimate and the discussion which we have had are some evidence that the advance in education is continuing. I hope that when one allows for the very great expansion in the number of children in the schools—1½ million in ten years—my hon. Friends will agree that we are getting value for money.

Mr. J. Rankin: Although I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir Charles, I think that it would be for the convenience of Scottish Members—and I am perfectly prepared to give way—if the Minister in charge of the Scottish Supplementary Estimate were to explain the Estimate to us in an introductory speech. That was the plan which was followed when the English Estimate was introduced. I do not think that my hon. Friend has been called yet. I am perfectly prepared to give way, Sir Charles.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,698,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

CLASS IV

VOTE 14. PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £523,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for public education in Scotland, including grants in aid and other payments into the Education (Scotland) Fund; for grants in aid and expenses in connection with the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; for the education of Poles; and for other educational services.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

5.27 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): I readily respond to the request which has been made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). This Estimate for Scottish education is a direct result of the eleven-eightieth rule. It is because there have been changes in England and the expansion of this service in certain directions that we in Scotland get a further payment into our Scottish fund. That really is the explanation and, therefore, the whole of our educational service is, in this Vote, open, as I understand it, for examination.

The Chairman: It is only the supplementary Estimate that we can discuss. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said quite the reverse.

Mr. Stewart: It is certainly only the figure that is in the Estimate that we can discuss, but that figure covers, in a sense, the whole range of our service.

The Chairman: I agree with that, but the only matter which we can discuss now is why there is an excess. We cannot go back to the original Estimate.

Mr. John Rankin: The position is, as I assume, that the debate is on very narrow lines.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Charles. We are dealing with Class IV of the Education, Scotland, Supplementary Estimate and the amount required is £720,000 less a certain amount—about £537,000. Are we entitled to relate that £500,000 or so for the purpose for which it is required? Since there is no detailed list, such as was dealt with for England and Wales, are we entitled to relate that £537,000 to the purpose of public education in all its aspects?

Mr. Rankin: May we have your guidance, Sir Charles. We seem to be in a difficulty. The Minister in charge, if I understood him correctly, seemed to indicate that a fairly wide field could be covered and you, Sir Charles, seem to be taking a somewhat different view. Where do we stand?

The Chairman: We stand because I am the Chairman. I will read what Erskine May says, in page 716:
…if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote…
It is perfectly clear.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We have received quite definitely, on the English Estimates, the headings under which increases were necessary. In the supplementary Estimate asked for by the Scottish Minister there are no specific headings. Is it not the case that the Joint Under-Secretary was correct when he said that this sum which represents eleven-eightieths, for which the English Minister asked, will be used not under definite headings but for the general purpose of education in Scotland? Since that is the case, will it not be possible for my hon. Friends, and, I hope, for myself, later to deal with any aspect of education which might be covered by this extra eleven-eightieths which we are being asked to vote today?

The Chairman: I will give the exact words out of Erskine May:
If the sum demanded by a supplementary estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original estimate, the Chairman has allowed questions of policy to be raised upon

it which would have been in order if it had been an original estimate.
Then comes the bit that I read out before about a supplementary Estimate merely providing additional funds.

Miss Herbison: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee and the Scottish Minister are in the same position. There are no details before us why we are asked for this supplementary Estimate and we are in a hopeless position. Any matters we may raise could be out of order under your present Ruling.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I put a practical point? On the English Supplementary Estimate we discussed educational policy fairly widely. If the present Ruling is rigidly applied, Scottish Members will be at a great disadvantage in comparison with their English colleagues.

Mr. Rankin: In page 68 of the volume of Supplementary Estimates, under "General Grant in Aid", we are told something about this expenditure. The note says:
Consequent upon the additional provision required for grants to local education authorities and other persons in England and Wales, a sum equal to 11 /80ths of the amount of such provision (with certain adjustments) is payable to the Education (Scotland) Fund In accordance with the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, Section 69 (2, c).
This' payment is, therefore, consequent upon amounts already sanctioned in England and caused, according to the note on page 58,
mainly by (a) increases in teachers' salaries due to the introduction of Stage I of a scheme for giving equal pay to women and of special allowances for teachers undertaking advanced work, (b) increases in salaries and wages of other staff, and (c) a rise generally in the cost of goods and services.
Is it not reasonable to assume that the increased grant in aid for Scotland is dependent upon the English supplementary estimate, which covers those provisions? It would follow that we could discuss our estimate on that basis.

The Chairman: Certainly, and it was done on the English Supplementary Estimate. When I was in the Chair we were only allowed to talk about the reasons for the increases additional to the original Estimate.

Mr. Rankin: If that is the case the Minister in charge ought to give us a


statement, just as we had a statement earlier from the English Minister of Education. If his statement was in order, explaining the English Supplementary Estimate, it ought to be equally in order for the Joint Under-Secretary to follow that course, which would be convenient to Scottish Members.

Mr. Ross: Further to the point of order. Would we not very quickly get out of this difficulty if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would apply himself with courtesy to the needs of the Committee and the rules of procedure by giving the reason and the purpose for which this grant is required? I assume that the original Estimate related to education in Scotland; we shall see what the purposes were when we get next year's Estimates and debate them in the Scottish Standing Committee.
In page 67, under C.1, relating to the general grant in aid, we see the amount of the original Estimate, the revised estimate and the additional sum required. The Joint Under-Secretary ought to tell us why the additional sum was payable and to address his mind and his explanations to the word "required." For what purposes has this additional sum of money been required? The Supplementary Estimate only comes before us when the money has been applied to expenditure and it is only reasonable that we should be told for what purposes the money has been used. If we could get that information from the Joint Under-Secretary of State we should be able adequately to debate the matter.

Mr. Rankin: The Committee has been treated with the gravest discourtesy by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in this connection. I imagine that we shall not hear many observations from the Government benches so the Minister will have placed this side of the Committee in a very great difficulty. If he outlined the details it would be of great help to us in the conduct of the debate. Is the Joint Under-Secretary prepared to make a statement?

Mr. Stewart: There is no question of discourtesy. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had no need to use language like that. I was asked to describe the position as I saw it, and I

did so immediately in response to the invitation. There is no need to import hot temper into this discussion.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary has mentioned me and what I have said about him. Is he suggesting that he explained the purposes for which this £720,000 was spent?

Mr. Stewart: That is a matter of opinion. I thought I had dealt with it adequately. In my opening remarks I thought I dealt adequately with the position as I understood it. The Chairman has taken a view, which the Committee must accept. The position, therefore, is as follows. As the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) pointed out, we have in page 68 the explanation of the fact that £720,000 comes in to the Education (Scotland) Fund.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked, "How do you explain the words in the third column in page 67—additional sum required?" I can only think that that is the formal way which we have of setting out our figures in these Estimates, and that, strictly speaking, this is not extra money that we have asked for so much as extra money that comes to us because of the arrangements we have for the financing of our educational services.
As I understand it, your Ruling, Sir Charles—and I think it is the wish of the Committee—is that it would be proper to say that that £720,000 will be required in Scotland for increased pay, for equal pay, and for general services of education. That, with respect, is my understanding of what we are talking about now.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I have spent many years in this House, up to the stage of being Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates. I think that, in fairness to every hon. Member of the Estimates Committee, I should say that we have never accepted, and could not accept, such an explanation from anyone coming before us for a requirement of £720,000. I must ask the Joint Under-Secretary more reasonably to go into that, and to break up the amount into the purposes for which it was spent.

Mr. Rankin: The Joint Under-Secretary is really not being helpful. Surely it is fair to the Committee that he should


have said a word about the milk-in-schools scheme. I realise, of course, that that comes under savings. Nevertheless, it is a point of tremendous importance to all of us as to why this sum has not been spent on the milk scheme.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member wishes me to explain everything that appears in page 67. These are small points and I thought it was unnecessary to go into them, but I shall gladly do so.
The Committee will see, in page 67 the items:


"C.2.—Superannuation of Teachers (Grant in Aid)
£163,000


C.3.—Milk in Schools (Grant)
£20,000."


The total of those two figures has to be deducted from the £720,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am in the hands of the Committee. I have been invited by the hon. Member opposite to explain something and his hon. Friends now suggest that I am out of order. If I am not in order, I will sit down.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Are we allowed to discuss C.2 and C.3?

The Chairman: No, we cannot discuss savings.

Mr. Stewart: I really would like to be able to explain—and not to discuss—what these words mean. Item C.2 deals with a grant in aid of £163,000 in respect of teachers' superannuation. I will explain what it means. Section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, which lays down how the Education (Scotland) Fund is to be made up, provides that so far as superannuation is concerned, first, there should be paid out of the Fund to the Exchequer eleven-eightieths of the amount of contributions collected in England and Wales and, second, that there should be paid into the Fund eleven-eightieths of the benefits paid in England and Wales.
In addition, of course, the Fund gets all that is collected in contributions in Scotland and bears all that is paid out in Scottish benefits. The £163,000 appears because less is being paid out in benefits in England and Wales this year and so there is a fall in C.2. This arrangement is part of the general situation in relation to the eleven-eightieths rule, which I have always thought—and I fancied that hon.

Members opposite agreed—works, on the whole to the advantage of Scotland. That explains the first item.
The explanation of


"C.3.—Milk in Schools (Grant)
£20,000 "


is as follows. The saving is £20,000, and the point is that this is the first year in which education authorities have contracted, and paid, for milk in schools. As the Committee knows, that job was formerly undertaken by the Ministry of Food. The authorities simply guessed in their preliminary estimates that they were going to spend more than is now, after closer estimating, found necessary. The saving does not at all mean that fewer children are drinking milk; it is merely the difference between the estimated and the actual expenditure. That, again, is based upon the English experience. I do not think that there is anything left for me to explain, because the item of £14,000—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. We have here an "Additional sum required" of £720,000. That item is followed by two subheads indicating savings. We have now got to the strange position in which we have been told nothing about the Estimate—which is the only thing we can talk about—and have had explained to us the savings about which we are not allowed to speak.

The Chairman: I did not know how it was to be linked up, but it is quite clear that all we can discuss is the reason for the excess over the Estimate.

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps, Sir Charles, you will allow me to explain the remaining saving that I have not covered. In page 68 there is the item:
Z.—…Expected Surplus…Annual payments by Education Authorities in respect of temporary school accommodation.
That item—£14,000—arises from the fact that these are the Horsa buildings and in the last year we have received more from education authorities in respect of those places than we had anticipated. There is, therefore, £14,000 more in the kitty.
Having said all that, I am still unable, in view of your Ruling, Sir Charles, to say anything more than that I would have thought that we should have been able here to discuss the matters that were mentioned in the English debate, namely, the general expenditure of the local


authorities on increased salaries, equal pay—the general increase in expenses. As that, in effect, covers the broad work of the Scottish educational service, I cannot really help the Committee further.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. We have now had an explanation of that part which, I understand, could not be discussed in this Committee, and we have had not one single word of explanation of the £720,000 which the Minister is tonight asking us to vote for his Department. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that he expects that we can discuss what the English Members discussed on their Estimates, but the one big thing that applies to England and Wales is the extra money being paid to a specialist teacher. That has not happened in this country and none of that money will be spent until 1st April. As I understand, the £720,000 covers the period only until 31st March, so that the major payment that was made under the English Estimates does not come in at all to our Scottish Estimates.
We have not had the £720,000 broken up for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, in the way that the English Minister broke up the relevant amount. We have not been told in any way how much more is going on books, on the education of the Poles and so on. Before we can have any reasonable and sensible discussion, the Joint Under-Secretary of State must break up that £720,000 or tell us why he cannot do it.
If we are going to be reasonable and safeguard the public purse, it is not possible for us to vote this amount of £720,000 if we do not know what it is for. The people in Scotland would rightly say that we were extravagant and that we were not doing our duty. I beg the Joint Under-Secretary of State to break up that £720,000 and justify his reasons for asking us to vote that amount.

The Chairman: That will be all right if the hon. Gentleman is able to do so.

Mr. Stewart: The reason for the £720,000 was explained to the Committee by the hon. Member for Govan, who read from item C, in page 68. That is where it comes from. It is an income to our Fund. I tell the hon. Lady quite frankly that it is not possible for me, any more than it was for her in similar circumstances, to say what we propose to do with that money which has come

to us automatically on account of our arrangement with United Kingdom. I am simply unable to say in what way that will be spent, except that it will be spent by this Government wisely in the interests of Scottish Education.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Further to the original point of order, Sir Charles. We have an interest in the matter which is to be debated after this debate. The quicker that this matter is cleared up, the better it will be for all. The Joint Under-Secretary says that he wants this money for grants in aid of expenses in connection with the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, the education of Poles and other educational services. Surely he could shortly and explicitly explain to the Committee the purpose for which he requires the money and then we could proceed to discuss agriculture.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Sir Charles. In view of the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary that he wants this money, but that he does not know what he wants it for, does that mean that the scope of the debate is widened to the extent that that amount of money is there and we can make suggestions on how it can be spent? Is that now the position?

The Chairman: As I understand it, this money comes automatically to Scotland, being a proportion of the amount for England and Wales. So far as I can make out, there is no particular claim for any of it up to now, but we have it and we ought, I imagine, to be thankful.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: We now know exactly where we are. I have one or two suggestions to make to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has told us that he has £720,000 in his possession, looking for a home. He does not know what to do with it, so we have been informed, and I want to make one or two suggestions as to what he can do with either the whole of that amount or part of it.
A person looking at the Estimate casually would imagine that the sum that is being set aside for educational purposes in Scotland was being increased. That is the first fallacy which underlies this Supplementary Estimate. There is no actual increase involved. There may be


a money increase, but in terms of bricks and mortar there is no increase; there is an actual decrease in the amount that is being devoted to educational purposes in Scotland, and a very serious decrease indeed.
I am sure it is a matter for regret that while the English Minister was able to tell us that equal pay was implemented in England without any English teachers suffering as a consequence, in Scotland it could only be implemented by certain teachers in Scottish schools having their maximum salaries reduced.
I want to show that there is room for all this money, and more, in safeguarding properly the educational structure in Scotland. I propose to use my own local authority as proof. Just over a year ago the Secretary of State for Scotland issued Circular 296, in which he drew the attention of education departments to the Government decision to make additional resources available for investment in educational building. As a result of that intimation from the Government asking that individual resources should be made available, local authorities all over Scotland went ahead and made arrangements for more schools and various other educational requirements.
These arrangements had hardly been completed when local authorities were told to reverse the policy which they were pursuing. As a result of that reversal, the local education authority in Glasgow had to reduce its figure for schools to £1,478,000. Let me try to explain exactly what that figure means. In 1950, when the Labour Government were in power, Glasgow was allowed to spend on school building alone up to £200,000 a month, a rate of £2,400,000 per year. Her Majesty's present Government, who are now seeking to give the impression that more money is now being expended on education, or set aside for educational purposes to be expended later, have reduced for Glasgow the amount of £2,400,000 to £1,478,000. That was the expenditure for 1954–55.
Worse than that, last October the Government issued a circular asking local authorities in Scotland to make their educational expenditure for 1956–57 not more than the amount which they spent in 1954–55. In other words, a reduction has been imposed.

The Chairman: I find it very difficult to relate this argument to the £720,000.

Mr. Ross: We have been told nothing about the £720,000.

Mr. Rankin: When I started, Sir Charles, I said that we had had from the Joint Under-Secretary an assurance that he had £720,000 in his care and that he did not know what to do with it.

Mr. Stewart: I know what to do with it.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman? Surely we have some right to tell him what to do with. We are entitled to advise him. He is not a dictator. He has come here tonight for advice. We are entitled to help him to spend the £720,000. The trouble is that I have already spent nearly £1 million of it in Glasgow alone, which shows how poor is the attitude of the Tory Government towards education in Scotland.
I hope I am in order, Sir Charles, because when I began I indicated that we were entitled to guide the Joint Under-Secretary as to how he should utilise this sum. All I am saying—and I will do it briefly—is that Glasgow could do with the whole of it and that it is not necessary for him to run round Scotland looking for a home for it.
The amount of money which was spent in Glasgow in 1950–51 was £2,400,000, and that is now reduced to £1,478,000. Accompanying that reduction is a tremendous rise in prices. In addition, this Government have removed control from private housing and have allowed shops and offices to be built without restriction, with the result that local authorities trying to carry on their work in education have had to compete for labour and materials.
The amount of money devoted to private housing, industry, shops and offices in the City of Glasgow last year increased by 56 per cent., and some of it was unnecessary. The amount spent on educational purposes, relative to the previous year, increased by only 17 per cent. This sum does not come even within nodding acquaintance of the amount which was spent in 1950 by the Labour Government. That applies not only to Glasgow but to Scotland.
I do not want to take too long. I could talk for quite a long time on this subject, but I know that many of my


hon. Friends are anxious to speak. They will have a word to say about educational needs in their areas, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will also have something to say about educational needs. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mt. Willey) will not grudge us this time. Agriculture can wait until another time. Having directed the Joint Under-Secretary of State's attention to one place where that money could be spent—the City of Glasgow—I had better finish.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Joint Under-Secretary has not treated Scotland with very much respect.

Mr. Ross: Or the Committee.

Mr. Thomson: Scotland is a country where the educational needs are crying out. Everybody will agree that the problem is not finding things to do but how to get some of the money for just some of the things crying out to be done. Yet we have this modest Supplementary Estimate of £720,000 and the Joint Under-Secretary is not in a position to tell us what he wants to do with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who has great experience in these matters, tells me that this money must be spent during the current financial year, which ends within a few weeks. Presumably, therefore, most of it has been spent, and it seems strange that the Minister cannot tell us on what he has been spending it.
Since he cannot give us any information, I want to ask him about one of the principal points mentioned in the Estimates. We are told that this is a Supplementary Estimate for a number of things, including "the education of Poles." I am rather puzzled by that. I thought the period during which we educated those Polish citizens who stayed in this country after the war had probably passed, since the war has been over for ten years. As a matter of information, I should be interested to know exactly how much money is being spent on educating Poles in Scotland and how long we are likely to go on spending it.
We are in a fantastic situation tonight. Not only do we have a Supplementary Estimate for £720,000, on which the Minister is very vague, but, also, the

Estimate comes before us at a time when we know perfectly well that the real situation in education is not that of the Government asking for more money, but that of the Government taking steps to cut down the amount of money being spent on education. The Minister shakes his head, but that is exactly what is happening under the economies announced during the last few days by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It may be that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, like the Chancellor, does not like these ugly words "cut" and "slash" but prefers the nice, polite words "re-phasing" and "re-timing." It would be interesting to see whether the Minister regarded his salary as having been cut or merely re-timed if it were to be paid to him over two years instead of over one year.
We are entitled to ask the Minister for some defence of this attack which the Government have made on Scottish education. As I understand the position which the Government are adopting, they are saying, "The country is in difficulties and, therefore, we must make cuts all round." There is a great deal of talk about equality of sacrifice. It seems to me that the Government's position is very similar to that of a mother of a family who said, "The money is getting tight. I will cut down the baby's milk by one-third and father's beer by one-third." That is the kind of equality of sacrifice which the Government have suggested in the educational sphere.
It is as if the mother of a family, faced with these difficulties, said, "I am going to cut down equally on the number of nights the children go to the cinema and the number of nights on which Bob goes to evening classes." The attitude of the Government is that a thing like education can be cut equally with all the luxuries and fripperies of national expenditure.
Scotland needs, not a modest Supplementary Estimate of £720,000, but very much greater sums spent on its education. We need a quite different set of priorities than that which the Government are putting before us. In my constituency they are busily building a luxury cinema at the same time as we are desperately in need of more schools. We are waiting anxiously for a start to be made on our trades college, in which I know the Minister is interested. If the


nation is facing economic difficulties it is important that we should cut down on things we can do without—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member knows that the reason why the new trades college in Dundee has not started is that Dundee is not ready to start it.

Mr. Thomson: The Minister misunderstands me. I apologise if I was guilty of misleading him.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is not the hon. Member also aware of the continued extension of the art college?

Mr. Thomson: We are getting into a very strange position. On Friday, we had a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which, among other things, he said there was going to be what he called "re-timing" of educational building by local authorities and what we call a cut in the education provided by local authorities. I am anxious that in Dundee there should be no delay in getting ahead with the trades college and other equally necessary school building. It is a matter of very great concern to me that as a result of the announcement of the Chancellor about educational economies there should not be delay in this urgent matter of education in Dundee. I am asking for an assurance from the Minister tonight that there will be no delay.
There is another way in which I think the £720,000 could be very usefully spent. The more money we can spend in cutting out wastage in the educational system the better. The more we can spend the better in making sure that children equipped to continue at school for an extra year, two years, or three years, shall do so. A year or so ago there was published in England, through the Ministry of Education, a very useful Report by the Advisory Council. It dealt with the question of early leaving. At that time I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he would consider initiating a similar investigation of the Scottish educational system and getting our very excellent Advisory Committee on Education to go ahead with, that, but the Secretary of State shrugged the matter off—

Mr. Stewart: That is not fair. The reason we did not do what the hon. Member has suggested in that way is that

we had done it equally efficiently in Scotland in another way. I claim that the Report we got on the matter was as good as the Report in England.

Mr. Thomson: I do not wish to complain about something which is unjustified. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what Report he is talking about. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he can do so.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member knows quite well that this has already been announced in the House. If I remember rightly it was spoken about in our last debate. We circularised headmasters and headmistresses of all the principal schools and undertook a large survey. We got a very full reply, the gist of which I announced to the House, although I cannot remember if I announced the details. If the hon. Member wants to have the details I should be glad to let him have them.

Mr. Thomson: That is exactly the answer I expected from the Minister, but I did not want him to be under a misapprehension. There was really no comparison between the results obtained in the replies to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and the results obtained by the English Advisory Council. That Report contains a great deal of information which is really vital to the future planning of educational policy. For instance, it discusses early leaving in relation to the social class of children and also to the kind of homes from which they come. It points out a matter of very great interest, when it says that the schools considered that a quarter of the children of unskilled workers were capable of some kind of sixth form work compared with 6·7 per cent. who were getting it. That is the kind of gap in educational equality we still have in our educational system. It is not dealt with in the Report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Stewart: How can the hon. Member make the statement that he does not know about this Report and that I am telling him about it for the first time? I can assure him that we have the same kind of figures in the Scottish Report as in the English Report. Had we not been satisfied about that matter we would have made another inquiry.

Mr. Thomson: I shall be only too glad to be proved wrong. If the hon. Gentleman has a Report such as he suggests, I


shall be glad if he will make it available. But the kind of research which has gone into the document from which I have quoted would not be the kind of thing which I should expect to be available from answers given by headmasters and headmistresses. We need something like this in dealing with our different Scottish educational traditions.
One of the things mentioned in the English Report is the question of fee-paying in schools. This is a case where the English educational system is much more progressive than ours. In the State system in England it is no longer possible to pay fees. It is not generally realised that in Scotland there are still fee-paying State secondary schools. The English Advisory Council investigated a suggestion made by certain middle-class parents that they should be allowed to buy secondary school places and grammar school places and the Advisory Council came down wholly against that suggestion. I should have thought that one way in which the £720,000 could be spent would be in the abolition of fees in Scottish secondary schools. That would be a notable step towards educational equality.
We ought to do a great deal more about the problem of early leaving and the problem of wastage. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman what I think is the background of the conclusion of the English Report. It is that the question of children leaving school cannot be considered merely as a matter of educational policy but, of course, has the widest social implications. The general economies which are being made by the Government in relation to our present national difficulties will have all sorts of very evil indirect effects on the educational system. When the Government begin to cut subsidies on council houses and to put up the rents of houses they make it more and more difficult for children to get a proper education, because the more overcrowded the harder it is for children of talent—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is now extending the debate beyond the terms of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Thomson: I bow to your guidance, Sir Rhys, but I was suggesting that it would be worth spending some of this money on a really comprehensive social investigation, to be conducted by the

Scottish Education Department. It is capable of that because it has done it in the past. The investigation could be into the general home circumstances and educational possibilities of children. If we want real educational equality of opportunity and to give all the children in Scotland education according to their capabilities it is not merely a matter of providing new schools—urgent as that is—and not merely a question of the salaries and conditions of teachers—urgent as those things are—but a question of getting a sense of values and of social priorities in times of difficulty which puts first things that are urgently needed, instead of making an all-round cut equally of luxury and social expenditure.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The attitude of the Joint Under-Secretary in presenting this Supplementary Estimate can be described only by one of two epithets—either incompetence or discourtesy. Knowing full well the efficiency of the civil servants who deal with these matters in the Scottish Home Department, I am perfectly sure that the choice of Parliamentary tactics was taken by the Joint Under-Secretary; and so I can only conclude that his attitude was discourteous.
We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for the amount which is required in the year ending 31st March, 1956, and today is 22nd February. In other words, there is only another five weeks to go, so that the £720,000 which is stated to be required either has been spent or the manner in which it is to be spent is already known. Yet we have not had from the Under-Secretary in justification of this requirement of finance, one single figure explaining the purpose for which the money is required, although he knows how it has been spent. If it had not been spent, it would be shown under subheads as a further saving.
The hon. Gentleman merely tells us that we can rest assured that this amount will be spent wisely and well. What does that mean? The money has been spent, and the House of Commons has the right to know from the Minister who asks for the money how it is spent and the purpose for which it is required. It is for the Minister to justify it and to let the House judge before it votes Supply.
While the Under-Secretary does not know what is to be done with the £720,000, he recollects a speech earlier this week in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we could not spare a single £ on either capital expenditure or expenditure for consumption. We were told that everything had to be saved. I say that not only has the Under-Secretary been discourteous, but that he has made an extremely foolish speech. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Public Accounts Committee were doing their duty, they should immediately call upon the Scottish Education Department and ask why it insists upon having this money when it does not know the purpose for which it is required.
If the hon. Gentleman now tells us that he knows how the money is to be spent, he will prove my claim that he has been discourteous to the Committee. Until he explains the purpose for which the money is required, I do not propose to argue in the dark about whether it is desirable.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was surprised when I saw the figure of £720,000. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary is aware of a report from the Department's Inspectorate in Edinburgh on conditions in Clydebank High School. That school is seriously overcrowded and understaffed. The conditions there—they are described in the report and I am sure that the Under-Secretary has seen it—are such that it is almost essential that we should have started to build another senior secondary school in the Clydebank area.
There have been requests for this new senior secondary school for a long time, and I should have thought that with this tremendous grant of £720,000 that we are getting from the Treasury, instead of providing temporary huts on the recreational space around the existing Clydebank High School, we could have got another secondary school.
I admit that a small group of people in the Clydebank area pressed for temporary buildings to be attached to the existing High School, and I understand that these temporary buildings are to be erected at very small cost on the recreational area of the school. Obviously, this is being done to avoid building a new school.

Most of us have seen secondary schools lose their recreational space to temporary buildings. I remember that temporary buildings which were put up in 1916 were still in existence in 1935, and I have no doubt that these temporary buildings which are now to be put up will still be there in another twenty years' time.
I am shocked that the Under-Secretary cannot give any clear idea of how the £720,000 is to be distributed or spent on education in Scotland, and in what direction it will be spent, even in a general way. I have mentioned the need of a senior secondary school in Clydebank and I hope that the Department of Education in Edinburgh will further consider the submission of plans for such a school, which is badly needed, as is shown by the report. The Department knows that a new school is essential and necessary and should not fob us off with temporary buildings.
I do not want to raise the question of the education of Poles, but I conclude my remarks by stressing the need for a greater contribution to the youth advisory councils, which are doing invaluable work in our counties for young people from the time they leave school at the age of 15 until the age of 21 or 22. In Dunbartonshire, we have a grand youth advisory committee and as good a youth organiser as anyone could wish to meet. This body of people is doing a wonderful job with the young people when they leave school, bringing them into community centres and engaging them in physical training and in arts and crafts of all kinds.
Those people are doing a really fine job, but, in my view and in the view of many others, including teachers, with whom I am acquainted, the Education Department in Scotland is not giving to the youth advisory councils the assistance, and to the youth leaders and workers the status, to which they are entitled. A great deal is spoken about young people being at loose ends between the ages of 15 and, say, 21, or until they serve their National Service. When child delinquency is discussed, there is much talk about young people being thrown on to the streets, especially in over-crowded urban areas. What grander job is there to be done in fitting young people for society or completing a young person's education than the work that is performed by these youth advisory groups, set up


by the Department of Education in Scotland? Having set them up, however, the Department should not then starve them of resources and facilities.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bence: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. It may be that the desired standards have been attained, but, evidently, the standard sought by the Scottish Office is much lower than the standard desired by those who organise youth activities in the counties. The hon. Gentleman and his Department must know that the Dunbartonshire Youth Advisory Council is doing a good job of work, but it is continually complaining of the lack of facilities and the lack of encouragement in pursuing its activities.
I have made these two points because, although we are asked to agree to this tremendous amount of money, the hon. Gentleman tells us quite plainly that he is not sure of the purpose for which it is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) assumes that it has either been spent or will be spent shortly, while my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), on the assumption that the Under-Secretary has the money to spend, wants it for Glasgow. My assumption is that the Under-Secretary has the money to spend; I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock that the hon. Gentleman has spent it.
I am entitled to make this assumption, because we are not told one way or the other. If, therefore, the money is yet to be spent, I should like now to lay my claim for some of it to build a new senior secondary school in Clydebank and some of it to assist the work of the Dunbartonshire Youth Advisory Council.

6.40 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: In my eleven years as a Member of the House of Commons I have not known such a situation as that in which the Committee is now, when, although we have given Ministers chance after chance to explain, we have not been told what the money we are asked to vote—£720,000 in this case—is to be spent on. Some of my hon. Friends suppose that the money has been spent; others suppose that the money is yet unspent, a nest-egg for spending in the very near future.

It is made almost impossible for us to decide whether we ought to vote this money for which the Government ask. I will assume that we in Scotland are in the most fortunate position of having £720,000, which we did not expect, but which we have, and can spend.
On that assumption, I say that the Secretary of State has a wonderful chance of doing something good for Scotland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear on Friday that there was to be a cut in school building. He told us it was a matter of timing. We have had experience of the Government's timing. We know the damage that was done to Scottish education because of the go-slow policy of this Government when they came to power in 1951.
I was shocked by that statement on Friday, and I have looked up some figures, and I have found that, because of this very same policy of the Government when they came to power in 1951, the number of new places provided in Scottish schools through projects started in 1952 was only 17,437, compared with 33,094 in 1951. The Government are now trying to carry out a policy which did grave damage when they applied it when they came to power in 1951. At that time they said that it was not a policy of cuts, but a policy of re-phasing or of retiming. The consequence was a 47·5 per cent. reduction in the provision of school places in Scotland in 1952.
This £720,000 provides the Secretary of State and the other Scottish Ministers with a chance of making starts in the next few weeks on buildings that otherwise we should have had to postpone. That is one way of using the £750,000 we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), in an admirable speech, brought out clearly the fact that the Government have made a decision to impose physical controls on educational building, but that they are allowing other types of building, luxury building, to go ahead.
A fortnight ago the Observer advised the Chancellor:
Surely if the situation is, as everybody agrees, so desperate, this is the moment for Mr. Macmillan to put dogma behind him and impose controls on private building.

The Deputy-Chairman: This has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

Miss Herbison: As far as we know, we have £720,000 to spend, and I am suggesting to the Under-Secretary of State, Sir Rhys, how he may spend it. I am trying to adduce arguments to back up my suggestion for the spending of that money.
I thought the argument in that leader in that most responsible paper, the Observer, was some of the best backing I could have in suggesting that the Government should give much more to educational building even at the expense of luxury building. I urge the Under-Secretary to get the Secretary of State to agree to that, because the Secretary of State may have some influence with the Cabinet.
There are many other matters we should have liked to have raised but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, it is impossible to do so because we do not know whether we can or not in these circumstances. I must, however, mention the matter of the education of the Poles. I should have thought that because of the action taken on this very matter by the Labour Government we no longer needed an Estimate for that now. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary should give us some explanation of that.
I hope that this will be the last time the Under-Secretary of State will come here so incompetent to deal with the matters before us, and that he will at least have a brief that he can read telling us why he wants money when he asks for it.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State to tell us why no provision is being made for discussion of Class VIII. A whole day allocated to Supply is being used for the discussion of education, no doubt a very important subject—

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Hughes: Class VIII is mentioned on the Order Paper, Sir Rhys.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be, but we are not dealing with it.

Mr. Hughes: I ask the Under-Secretary of State what provision is being made for the discussion of the subjects included in Class VIII. Fisheries are being treated—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing fisheries now.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I know that the Committee wants to proceed very quickly to another topic, so I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) asked me a number of questions about school building in Glasgow. I could give him all the facts if there were more time; I have all the figures here. It would be quite wrong for the Committee or for the public outside to be under any impression that since this Government came to power, in 1951, we have reduced Glasgow's building programme. Quite the contrary is the truth. I will give the Committee one figure. I have not time for more. The number of new school places provided in 1955—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. May we be told whether this is covered by the £720,000 being asked for?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. I do not know yet what we are to be told.

Mr. Stewart: I am replying to a question put to me by the hon. Member's hon. Friend he Member for Govan. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) does not wish me to be allowed to reply to his hon. Friend he had better say so publicly, and I will stop.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I thought we were discussing the provision of £720,000, which is required for some mysterious purpose or another, and we are still waiting for an elucidation of the reasons why that amount is being asked for.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. We are dealing with this sum of £720,000. I have nothing to do with the Minister's speech.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Mr. Stewart: Is this a point of order?

Miss Herbison: No.

Mr. Stewart: I have less than 10 minutes left and I ask the Committee to be so kind as to allow me to answer the questions. The Opposition have used the last three-quarters of an hour in criticism of the Government. Hon. Members opposite have adduced so-called


facts which are not substantiated and have said things which are quite untrue. If I am not permitted to correct them, the Committee has fallen to a low level.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. We are being asked to vote a sum of £720,000. I understand that that Vote must go through by 7 o'clock. Surely the Minister must give us the reasons for asking us to vote this sum.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is not raising a point of order at all.

Mr. Stewart: I want to give the hon. Member for Govan an answer to his question. The answer is that the number of school places provided by Glasgow in 1955 was the highest since the war, apart from the record year of 1954 when we had 34,410 places provided. All the figures go to prove that Glasgow has proceeded since 1951, under a Conservative Government, at a speed never before known. I hope that that will continue.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East cast doubts on whether we have generally improved things and increased our expenditure on educational provisions. I have given him the figures.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wanted to know about the future.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member also spoke about the past, and I must answer him. Since 1951 no fewer than 105,000 additional school places have been provided in Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I thought that we were dealing with a Supplementary Estimate relating to 1955–56. Surely the Minister is completely out of order in referring to something which happened in 1951.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are dealing with this Vote. That is perfectly clear, and I take it that the Minister is dealing with it.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), not five minutes ago, was telling the Committee what the Labour Government had done in 1950 and, that having been said, if it is not right for me to say what has been done since 1951 it is not justice at all. I am entitled to follow up the hon. Lady's remarks and to give her the facts. I know that the

Opposition do not like the facts, but I am going to give them. Since 1951, when we on this side of the Committee have been in charge, there has been an unprecedented development in building—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have sought to keep hon. Members within the scope of this Estimate. I hope that they will do that.

Mr. Stewart: I am perfectly happy about that, Sir Rhys. I have just told the Committee what money has been spent in the past, and this is an indication of how we shall go on in the future. The Government have built 139 new schools. We have started 203, and over 150 schools are projected.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really must ask that the debate be kept within the scope of the Estimate.

Mr. Stewart: I have dealt quite satisfactorily with that point which was raised by hon. Members.
I was asked about Poles. In this financial year, we shall be spending in Scotland about £1,000 in bursaries and fees for Poles—

Mr. Ross: How much of that is supplementary?

Mr. Stewart: I am not able to answer the hon. Member, for a reason which he knows quite well. These are accounting mysteries and it is impossible for me or anybody else to clear them up.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. You will recall, Sir Rhys, that when we last debated this matter we were given a specific supplementary figure in respect of the education of Poles. Why cannot we get that from the Minister now?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that when hon. Members rise to a point of order it really will be a point of order.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was less anxious to interrupt me and more ready to listen to me—

Mr. Ross: I want the facts.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the Committee will conduct itself properly and give the Minister an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock would have had the complete answer if he had been prepared to listen. The figure for expenditure on Poles was £1,000 and that, of course, is a supplementary estimate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised a number of points on which I hope he does not think me unkind or discourteous in correcting him. As to Government building policy and its timing, upon which hon. Members have addressed questions to me, I presume the Committee wants an answer—

Mr. Ross: That is general policy.

Mr. Stewart: It is general policy, of course. I was asked what was meant by the circular which was issued recently to local authorities and by the Chancellor's recent statement. They mean that we have no intention of holding back any school building in Scotland that is essential. [Laughter.] Well, the judgment of whether the school is essential or not is never so difficult as hon. Members opposite would like to think. It is quite clear in the minds of local authorities, and we seldom disagree with them.
Certain projects are essential to meet increased school population or new town building. It may will be that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will come into that category. I assure the Committee that the Scottish Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not hold back one essential project. In saying that, I am merely repeating what I said to the House of Commons on 1st November last. The words which I used then stand.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he would look into the question of the senior secondary school in Clydebank. Will he promise to look into the matter and study the report of the inspectorate?

Mr. Stewart: I shall be delighted to do that and to write as quickly as possible to the hon. Member, who has been so courteous in his request.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East discussed the important question of early leaving and wastage. I agree that this is a most important matter. I would remind the Committee that the other day the Government, in association with

E.I.S., issued a new pamphlet which is the start of the really vigorous campaign that we are carrying out in Scotland to persuade clever children to remain at school. I shall do everything I can to help forward that scheme and I hope that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
I have gone as far into these matters as I can in the time at my disposal. I must express to the Committee my own regret that we have been slightly at cross-purposes because of the mysteries of our accounting methods. It is not my fault nor the fault of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. It is a system which we have built up. Within the bounds of the rules which you, Sir Rhys, were able to declare, we have done the best we can and I invite the Committee to let us have this Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £523,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956, for public education in Scotland, including grants in aid and other payments into the Education (Scotland) Fund; for grants in aid and expenses in connection with the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; for the education of Poles; and for other educational services.

CLASS VIII

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministry of Food, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of County Agricultural Executive Committees; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: While Vote I and all the items therein are more or less self-explanatory, I shall have to put a few questions to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on salaries, payment for agency services, deficiency payments, and so forth. Referring to salaries, under Subhead A. 1—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER: resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, to provide that the Corporation in carrying out the works authorised by this Act shall not employ or cause to be employed any person who is paid, either directly or indirectly, by way of salary, contribution to superannuation fund or otherwise, any additional sum of money on condition that he does not join or maintain his membership of any trade union.
Under Part III of this Bill there is provision for considerable street works, and it is in relation to the work done there-under, and to the employment taking place there-under, that this Motion will be relevant. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that when the Blyth Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] came before the House a Motion in similar terms was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo).
I understand that there is some objection to this Bill on the ground of victimisation of certain properties. My Motion has nothing to do with that. Indeed, it has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the street improvements proposed in Part III, and it proposes to defeat an altogether different type of victimisation. That such victimisation exists in this country will be a surprise to many hon. Members.
There are certain organisations of which I will give a glaring example. The Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society is an organisation for the payment of benefits to its members. The intention of this organisation is to defeat trade unionism because it has two conditions of membership, both of which hon. Members will find extraordinary. One is that membership of the organisation is proposed by the employer, so obviously it is not a genuine workers' organisation. The second is that membership and benefit are both refused to any person who is a member of a trade union.
This organisation is what has been crudely called a bosses' union. Not only that, but it is a deliberate attempt to prevent trade unions from being


organised, and is an attack upon a principle which is well established in this country. I should think it would be agreed by all Members of the House that trade unions are important and valuable institutions, that they contribute towards our social stability, and that they are part and parcel of our way of life.
We believe that the practice of this organisation is a pernicious one, and in moving this Motion it is my desire that there should be no extension of this principle as regards the work done by the Croydon Corporation or by the contractors which it employs, and that this attack upon trade unionism should not be allowed to continue.
I apologise for holding up the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but my colleagues and I believe that this is an important matter of principle and that this Bill is a proper vehicle in which to introduce it.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I beg to second the Motion.
I also wish to assist this debate by emphasising the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman). To my mind, far too many statements are made in the House about restrictive practices that are unfounded, but here we are dealing with something which is not only an example of restrictive practices in industry but also affects the liberty of the person. The organisation to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention not only stipulates that its members shall not belong to a trade union, but specifies clearly that if, having paid into that organisation for the purpose of receiving certain benefits, they at any time become members of a trade union, they shall not derive the benefits which would normally accrue to them.
That is an extraordinary state of affairs. In this country insurance companies, friendly societies and benefit societies have often been accused of discriminating. Some discriminate on the grounds that a man is an actor or a bookmaker and, therefore, ought not to be given cover when driving a car because he is a hazardous risk. Often that discrimination is not based upon actuarial evidence, to my mind, but where can one find any evidence that a man, on becoming a trade unionist, becomes a greater risk or a difficult individual?
This is an appropriate Bill in which to try to get this Motion agreed to by the House because there is some concern about the Bill in the borough with which it is concerned. There is concern that it will impinge upon the liberty of many people who live in Croydon. For that reason, and for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend, I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: May I say, first, to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) that there is no foundation in the thought which he had in his mind that there is any victimisation against anyone in the Bill?

Mr. J. Silverman: I am not suggesting that there is. I have simply stated that there are some objections on that ground.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there have been objections, and still are. I wanted to make it clear that there was no victimisation, because the hon. Member referred to victimisation.

Mr. Silverman: I never suggested that there was victimisation. I simply pointed out that the question of victimisation was being raised, and that this was a suitable opportunity to raise it.

Mr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) said there might be some infringement of the liberties of the people of Croydon. I should like to assure him that, as he will find in due course, there is no possible foundation for any such thought. In fact, the Croydon authority is doing its utmost, in compliance with requirements, to make certain that it does all it possibly can for the people of Croydon and that there is no victimisation. It is trying to ensure that nothing of that nature can possibly occur.
I trust that I am not wrong in stating that this matter is being raised tonight as a general employment and trade union matter and is not specifically directed against the Croydon Corporation Bill. The very same issue occurred on the Blyth Generating Station Bill some weeks ago. In view of what I have seen on the Order Paper, I presume that it was also the intention of the same hon. Members to raise the issue on the British Transport


Commission Bill had that Bill reached the House before the Croydon Corporation Bill. They may still raise it on the British Transport Commission Bill. It has so happened that this Bill appeared first, and the hon. Members presumably felt that it was an appropriate time to raise this problem.
There is a natural desire on the part of the hon. Members concerned to ventilate the problem, which to them is of considerable importance. I trust that the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour means that later he will take some part in the debate, and possibly will state the Government's view on this issue. I hope that he will see his way clear to intervene on that aspect.
In any case, I want to make it absolutely clear that so far as I am concerned this issue does not specifically concern the Croydon Corporation Bill, and I do not intend tonight to get involved in the very complicated general issues which have been raised by the two hon. Members. I shall be very happy to leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with those general issues.
My purpose in speaking is to give, on behalf of Croydon, an assurance to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen which I myself have obtained from the town clerk and officials of the council, that there is not a single case on record in which the Croydon Corporation has discriminated between members and non-members of a trade union, nor has it intervened in a man's undoubted right at any time to join or to maintain his membership of a trade union.
In fact, in matters of trade union practice the Croydon Corporation has an outstanding and first-class record. In all its present written contracts there appears a clause to ensure—and these are the words—that
in the employment and engagement of workmen required for the execution of the work the subject of this contract no preference shall be given as between unionists and non-unionist.
I believe that that attitude by the Croydon Corporation has always had the approval and general support of other authorities throughout the country which appreciate Croydon's attitude in this matter.
I therefore conclude by saying that whatever decision is reached tonight I should like it to be clearly understood that there cannot possibly be any reflection whatever against Croydon specifically. Croydon has a fine and outstanding record in all matters appertaining to trade union practice. Because of this and what I have said, I naturally trust that if this Motion is pressed to a Division it will be defeated. This would be an entirely unnecessary Instruction, and quite irrelevant to the Croydon Corporation Bill.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Some years ago, when I was deputy-leader of the Labour Party on the Kent County Council, we drafted new standing orders, and we called for an examination of all fair wages clauses throughout the country At that time the trade union side put to us as a model fair wages clause and as the best they could find at the time—1946–47—the fair wages clause of the Croydon Corporation. That was the sort of clause which they wanted. I think I ought to say that in fairness to Croydon.
I want now to throw the ball right back to the Ministry of Labour, because this subject has been raised in the general context before. It is merely because I sat in the Chamber to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and did not go out to get the evidence, that I have not the evidence here. The trade union group of Members of Parliament with which I have been associated has been concerned about this matter for some time. I have been reading the records since 1945 on this specific issue and, although I have given an alibi to Croydon about it, I want to deal with the general merits of the case.
When the present House of Commons fair wages clause was adopted in 1946 or 1948, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was Minister of Labour, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) raised this issue. I am stating this from memory, but, I think, perfectly correctly, and it may be some guidance to the Minister when he investigates it. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading at that time moved a Motion to achieve what my hon. Friends the Members for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) and Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) are trying to achieve in the Croydon Corporation Bill. That was a rather better occasion, if I may say so


to my hon. Friends with respect, because it would have dealt with the issue generally.
The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading was withdrawn on the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, then the Minister of Labour, that the matter would be watched and that if specific cases were raised with the Ministry of Labour a record would be taken of them to see how far this was a vicious practice and how far these people who think they are suffering from it have in fact complained about it. There is not much point in my hon. Friends complaining about it unless there is vociferous advocacy of their instruction from the men on the job. I do not believe in carrying people about. If they cannot complain on the factory floor they should not have people to complain on their behalf here.
I hope I may have the Parliamentary Secretary's attention on this point, because I do not want it to be raised on Private Bills; I want it to be settled as a matter of general application, and so do my hon. Friends. I happen to know—and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark will not mind my saying this—that since I raised this matter with him within the last week or two he has written to the Ministry of Labour, as an ex-Minister, asking what has been the effect of that undertaking which he gave all those years ago, whether there have been any complaints and whether the Minister now sees a reason to introduce this instruction into the general fair wages clauses which regulate the affairs of the House.
Curiously enough, it is not a general law of the country which regulates these affairs, but a decision of the House. I believe that people who tender for contracts have to undertake that their conditions of service coincide with, or are in line with, whichever is the correct term, the Resolution of this House to which I have referred.
I do not blame my hon. Friends, who hold strong views on this issue, for raising it on the Blyth and Croydon Bills. It is a form of guerilla warfare, and it is really not the responsibility of the Croydon Corporation. If the Minister of Labour feels that it is a malpractice, he should deal with it, and there is no question that,

if the allegations are as stated, it is a malpractice.
The right hon. Gentleman may remember that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) thought sufficiently strongly on this point to become a supporter of a Bill put forward under the Ten Minutes Rule by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading—I forget the date, but it was some little time ago—to establish this very point and, in a representative capacity, I have been concerned with it.
The point at issue is one on which the members of my own union—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—feel very strongly. It is an old sort of practice by which, when a man becomes a foreman, he joins a mutual benefit society, which is not a trade union at all, but, in the language of the trade unions, a "pudding club." He joins that organisation, membership of which is not permitted if he is a member of a trade union. In fact, it is a hangover from the old days of mass unemployment, and it is a method by which a man traded his freedom for a little brief authority. That was the origin of the business, and the practice is found in the nationalised industries.
The man takes this step, and is given certain benefits and certain superannuation benefits, but he really becomes some sort of bondsman. It is the idea that a man must belong to a closed corporation and cannot belong to a trade union. If he belongs to a trade union, or hides his membership of it, all his benefits may be forfeit.

Mr. J. Silverman: Are forfeit.

Mr. Pannell: Yes, are forfeit.
That is the nub of the case which my hon. Friends are putting up, and there is no hon. Member on the Government side of the House who can defend it. I have already made my own position clear, with regard to the Croydon Bill, and I hope I have dealt in justice with it, but the House must now address itself to the Motion. Certainly, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) cannot get up, in spite of his allegiance to the Tory Party, and say that he stands for that sort of nonsense. Neither can any hon. Member on that side of the House in any circumstances get up and say that he stands for this sort of nonsense. It is a form of feudalism.
It is not something born of the concept of a free society and free men, and the Conservative Party, which always boasts now that it includes so many trade unionists in its ranks, really must address itself to this matter. I happen to belong to a trade union which is one of the oldest in the country. Its history goes back to 1780, and it has always catered for the craftsmen of the country. It is quite common, as far as the Amalgamated Engineering Union is concerned, for people starting as apprentices to become engineer-admirals in the Royal Navy or managing directors, but it so happens that the Section I card of the A.E.U. is something of which people are proud and keep to the end of their lives. It is not the sort of thing they easily give up, and it ought not to be taken away from any man as the price of his advancement.
That is the point we are dealing with here, and it is no light point which my hon. Friends have made. It can be argued out of court on the basis of the Croydon Bill, but it cannot be argued out of court in this House. I have spoken shortly and without notes, and I hope that the Croydon Bill will go through, because it deserves to go through. Croydon is one of the outstanding local authorities; I have worked in the place and I know it. I think the only thing wrong with it is its political representation in this House. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour represents a constituency near enough to Croydon for him to know the merits of that borough, which wishes to become a city and probably ought to be one.
There is a responsibility on the Parliamentary Secretary, who is not insensitive to these considerations, to give an answer to my hon. Friends and not to rest satisfied, but to look at the references I have made to the fair wages clause and to the debate in which there was complete unanimity on these things, some years ago. This is the basis of all fair trading and fair regulations between employers, employees and all Government Departments, but this is an issue which should be decided in a general way, so that it shall not be raised, as it is now, on a Private Bill in this House.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I hope that the House will reject this Motion. I think it wrong that this sort of issue

should be dealt with on consideration of a Bill relating to a particular borough like Croydon, that if this sort of subject is to be dealt with it must be dealt with for the country as a whole, and that it is quite wrong to try to write this sort of stipulation into a Bill of this nature.
I hope that the request which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has just made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who, I understand, will reply to the debate, will be listened to, and that, if legislation is necessary, it will be of a general nature. I do not think it is right that one local authority should be bound in this way when other local authorities throughout the country are not so bound. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Motion.
I can understand the feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society. I do not want to say whether I am in favour of a limitation upon the activities of people who subscribe to that society or not, but I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, West was certainly right when he said that this is an old-established arrangement which came down from the bad old days. I agree with him on that point, but it is a society which gives benefits to its members, and I do not think it right that we should by this sort of device either restrict its activities or prevent it continuing.

Mr. J. Silverman: There is nothing in the Motion to prevent the continuation of its activities or the distribution of benefits. The only thing to which we object in the activities of the Society are its restrictions upon trade unionism.

Mr. Williams: If there is to be a change in the whole set-up of the Society, it may not be acceptable to some people who have to finance it, and it may jeopardise some of the benefits accruing in future. I do not see that we can really dispose of such an issue on a Motion of this nature. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Motion and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give further consideration to the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West as to whether or not general legislation should be necessary.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: I sympathise with the defence put up by the hon. Members who represent the Borough of Croydon, but it was entirely unnecessary, because my hon, Friends and I who put our names to this Motion had no intention of casting any reflections on the Croydon Corporation or its Bill. Having said that, I am astonished to learn that both hon. Members asked the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order. The hon. Member who has just spoken from this side of the House does not represent a Croydon seat.

Mr. Collins: I am sorry if I have made a mistake, but I think the hon. Member who has just interrupted does represent a Croydon constituency, and that he said that he shared the view that this Motion should be rejected. I found that astonishing, in view of the sentiments which have so often been expressed by hon. Members opposite who support trade unionism.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) said he did not want to deal with the main issue, because he thought it was too complicated. I took down his words at the time, and I think that if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find the word "complicated." There is nothing complicated about this at all. It is simply a desire to assert the right of an employee to become or to remain a member of a trade union without any effect on his employment. That we regard as a fundamental right, and I should have thought that every hon. Member in this House would have so regarded it.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is not putting the situation quite correctly. What he is saying is that any contractor to this authority will not be able to contract if he is a member of the Society. That is a very great restriction.

Mr. Collins: Anybody who is a member of the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society can become a member of that Society only if he has been nominated by his employer and undertakes that he is not and will not become a member of a trade union. Therefore, he labours under that disability and nothing can get round it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, it would have been better for this subject to have been dealt with in a general way by legislation, if it was thought necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) said, when he raised this point in the Nationalised Industries (Membership of Trade Unions) Bill, under the Ten Minutes Rule, that it was supported by hon. Members opposite.
The Motion is in complete accord with the principles advocated on that occasion, and for the life of me I cannot see why anybody should now oppose it. We have made it perfectly clear that there is no reflection on any other aspect of the Bill, which will no doubt be considered on its merits. We are concerned with this one point. Since the Government have not seen fit to take any action, and as we lack information—a gap which we hope will be filled tonight—this is a perfectly proper procedure, although not so satisfactory as the one I have suggested.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said that Croydon Corporation had never interfered with the right of employees to join a trade union. I am very glad to hear that, and I accept it completely. That being the case, it is very difficult co understand how there can be any objection to the Motion. The hon. Member may say that it merely underlines what is already the practice, but there is no harm in underlining it, and I should have thought that the sponsors of the Bill would be prepared to accept the Motion. In view of the very clear expression of opinion given on this matter by my hon. Friends, I hope that the Motion will be approved without a Division.

7.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): As the House will realise, this is a matter which concerns a Private Bill and is, therefore, not one for which the Government have a direct responsibility. Nevertheless, we feel that the issue raised by the proposed Instruction to the Committee has important and far-reaching implications in the field of industrial relations. It is for that reason that I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I intervened fairly early in our discussion and gave the House the Government's view.
I am afraid that the view of the Government is that they should advise the House that the Motion should be rejected. I should like to explain the reasons for that point of view, and, in the course of so doing, I shall refer to the points put by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr, C. Pannell). I should first make it absolutely clear that I do not oppose the Motion because I wish in any way to support discrimination of any kind against trade unions or trade unionism as such. The record of the Government, as of preceding Governments for many years, makes it clear that Governments of all parties are aware of the fundamental importance of trade unions in industry and in the life of the country as a whole. Our support for trade unionism and the right to belong to a trade union cannot be assailed. I want to make it clear that there is no question of opposition to the principle of trade unionism in our advice to oppose the Motion.
Equally, I want to make it clear that I am not here to support, any more than I am here to criticise, the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society, which is the main organisation at which the Instruction is aimed. Whatever we may think about the rules of that Society—and perhaps we ought to remember that it was established about 57 years ago—it is, nevertheless, a perfectly legal society. It is registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and its purposes are the valuable ones of providing sickness and superannuation benefits. That is something we must remember.
It would surely not be right for Parliament to impose some statutory discrimination against the employment of individuals who have freely chosen to join a society whose objects are perfectly legal.

Several Hon. Members: indicated dissent.

Mr. Carr: Hon. Members seem to dissent from that, but I cannot say that anybody has ever been under any pressure to join the Society. I am sure a great number of the Society's members joined perfectly willingly—perhaps I may add without careful consideration and examination of some of the rules of membership. But I am sure it is a fact that many people have freely joined the Society to receive from it benefits which

are good, and it would be wrong for Parliament, by legislation, to discriminate against the employment of those people.

Mr. J. Silverman: The hon. Member has missed the point of the objection. It is not a question of voluntarily joining the Society, but of allowing a person voluntarily to join the Society and to join a trade union at the same time.

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member will be patient, I shall come to that a little later.
There is another matter to which I must draw the attention of the House and that is that this Instruction relates not only to direct employees of the Corporation engaged in the work for which the Bill provides, but might apply to employees of all the Corporation's potential contractors and sub-contractors on the same work. That is a point which we must take into account.
Even if some hon. Members opposite think it right by law to impose such conditions, the proposal should surely be one of general validity and not one for sporadic application as Private Bills happen to come before the House.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member is now raising a very substantial issue. Will he declare the attitude of the Government on this general issue? Will he continue to condone this discrimination against trade unionism or not?

Mr. Carr: Again, if the hon. Member will be patient, I will come to that.
I have in any case already made clear in my opening remarks that our position on this Motion is in no way based on objection to trade unionism, and we uphold implicitly the right of people to join trade unions and not to suffer discrimination in any way if they do so.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, this is certainly not a matter for sporadic application. He suggested that the matter might be more satisfactorily dealt with by some amendment of the fair wages resolution. He referred to the debate in 1946, when the fair wages resolution was passed by the House. As he pointed out, it is interesting to note that this most important question was dealt with by way of a Resolution of this House and not by legislation. That strengthens my case, that legislation is not a satisfactory way of dealing with these problems.
The undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) on that occasion, when he was Minister of Labour, was in the following terms:
…if the organisations, individually or jointly, can raise any question with regard to the operation in relation to the point referred to, I promise it will have immediate consideration and that it will be referred to the tribunal mentioned so that a decision can be taken at once."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 716.]
I have not had the time or the opportunity to look into the matter in detail, but I am provisionally advised that there have been no objections of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Member for Southwark when he gave that undertaking. I will certainly go back to my Department at the first opportunity and inquire into the matter in order to make sure that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. C. Pannell: I rise only to make it clear to the hon. Member that, following the debate upon the Blyth Bill, I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), whom I felt would not mind me asking, and he said that he had written to the Ministry on this point. Presumably the hon. Gentleman's Department had this question under consideration. We shall look forward with interest to the result of the hon. Gentleman's investigations. The question, briefly, is whether there have been any complaints of the kind referred to. If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on that occasion he will understand the point that I am making.

Mr. Carr: I readily give an undertaking to look into the point, and especially into the correspondence which the right hon. Member for Southwark has had with the Ministry of Labour in connection with this matter.
I have given certain reasons why I must advise the House to reject the Motion. My main case in giving that advice, however, rests upon the fact that in any case it is not right to deal with matters of this kind by legislation. These are matters affecting relations between employers and workers and, in our opinion, are best left to negotiation and settlement between the parties concerned.

If there is any difficulty, if there is something wrong, if this rule is outmoded, the matter should be dealt with by way of ordinary negotiations between representatives of employers and employees, according to the normal practice in our system of industrial relations.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that principle. I would ask hon. Members who support this Moion to think very carefully before pressing the House to depart from that well-established principle. It is a most important one, and I have always felt that it was a tradition and a practice which was adhered to most strongly by trade unionists themselves.

Mr. Willey: I fully accept that point. Will not the hon. Gentleman accept the view that there is an obligation to prevent discriminatory practices which militate against good relations in industry. Does not he agree that good relations themselves depend upon the observance and enforcement of certain rules, and that we have to prevent any discriminatory practices which are directed solely against trade unionists?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that these matters are best dealt with by way of negotiation between the two sides of industry, according to our traditional practice.
It would be an understatement to say that we have other problems just as important as this in the industrial field today, and these matters, as is right, should be left to the two sides of industry to negotiate and solve between themselves. For example, mention has been made, both inside and outside the House, about various restrictive labour practices, and on a previous occasion when this matter was debated, the hon. Member for Reading likened the practice of this society to a closed shop in reverse. We have always felt that these matters are not matters for legislation by Parliament. That is a doctrine to which the House would be well advised to stick—and any Government which departed from it would be stepping on to a very slippery slope.

Mr. J. Silverman: The hon. Member has said that it is desirable that these matters should be settled by negotiation between the two sides of industry. We agree with him about that—but who are the two sides? If one side is so discriminating as to ensure that the other


side does not operate in an organised fashion, who will represent the other side—the workers—in any negotiation with the employers?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member must remember that the fair wages resolution in its present form, as approved by the House in 1946—including the resistance to the Amendment moved at that time by the hon. Member for Reading—was approved by the National Joint Advisory Council, which includes Trades Union Congress representatives as well as those of employers both in private and nationalised industry. The then Minister gave an undertaking that if there were any objections they would be considered and referred to the appropriate tribunal, which, speaking from memory, I believe is the Industrial Court, beyond which there is the Minister himself. I have already given an undertaking to make sure that I am right in saying that there have been no such complaints, and also to look into the matter thoroughly.
Once again, I would ask the House to say that it would not be right to depart from the present doctrine of not dealing with matters of this kind by legislation. The principle which we want to uphold is that people should have freedom to belong to trade unions. That right is already firmly established in the case of Croydon Corporation, and no legislation is required to ensure it in respect of any work carried out under the auspices of that authority. The Corporation already includes a fair wages clause in all its contracts. The terms of the clause include a provision that all those employed on work for the Corporation shall be free to be members of trade unions. The Motion is clearly unnecessary in this case.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House, first, that there is no need for legislation of this kind in relation to the Bill, because the practice of the Croydon Corporation is already satisfactory; and, secondly, that, as a matter of principle, legislation is not the right way to deal with these problems. They should be left to be dealt with by way of our normal industrial relations practice, by the two sides of industry. I hope that the House will accept my advice not to press this proposed Instruction, but will agree to its withdrawal.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The most interesting thing that has emerged from this debate is that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his person and in the way he has treated his brief, has underlined the point I wanted to make in a short contribution to the discussion. The hon. Gentleman has had to be told about these things. He has given us the impression that he is a little bewildered about the fuss raised on this side and says that we should all be reasonable—that these things do not happen in these days.
Indeed, he talked of this Society which has been mentioned as if it were purely a benefit society, and seemed completely to have missed the point that what he calls absence of complaints may be due to the fact that one does not get the job as foreman or member of the staff unless one does join the Society. It is not a question of complaining afterwards that someone is discriminating against one or requiring one to take a certain course of action. One knows that one is not eligible for promotion, and that is absolutely inadmissible in modern times.
Those of us who support the Motion feel, perhaps, a little guilty at the possibility of the Croydon Corporation being embarrassed by the holding up of its Bill during this discussion, but I am very glad to learn from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), and from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), that we could not have hit upon a better opportunity, or upon a more co-operative public body—a borough whose record fully entitled it to be the first to adopt the suggestion contained in this Motion. It will cost the Corporation nothing. It does not upset the Bill at all.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, used the word "ventilating" as though we had just used the occasion to get yet another debate in the House. There is nothing to ventilate on the subject any longer. It is thirty-three years since this matter was first ventilated by the Trades Union Congress, on the initiative of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Let us remember that over large parts of the country—certainly in the rural districts in which I lived—there were before the war remnants of the most ruthless discrimination against trade


unionists. It is fair to say that at the beginning of the war, with the dispersal of industry all over the country and the new type of organisation for war production a lot of those old, bitter prejudices were broken down.
This is the interesting point. It is seventeen years since there were active fights between the two sides about whether or not, in principle, to recognise trade unions; seventeen years since there was a general acceptance in the country of the importance of trade unions. There is no one working in industry today younger than the Parliamentary Secretary whose whole experience has not been based on the fact that the trade unions are accepted as a perfectly normal, constructive, creative part of our industrial structure.
This condition is an out-of-date prejudice. This is just as much nonsense as is discrimination against Roman Catholics. It is no answer to say that it is not often practised—it ought not to be practised at all. Since the Corporation of Croydon, on the evidence and testimonial of my hon. Friends, has the reputation for having initiated a fair wages clause so good that it came to be adopted for general use by this House as a model of the sort of clause to be used, surely the Croydon Corporation, above all, should be glad to seize this opportunity of including in this Bill a form of words which will be an example to others who follow on, and which will ultimately be embodied in the sort of resolution which the Parliamentary Secretary foresaw in his speech.
It would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if hon. Members tonight were to vote against this Motion and to rouse again those old arguments and prejudices and petty tyrannies which have been forgotten for half a lifetime.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I understand this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has appeared at the Box to defend his Department and to make known its views. He is also the hon. Member for Mitcham. We have just heard about what happened thirty-three years ago—and thirty-three years ago I was the hon. Member for Mitcham. As one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, I should like to offer him my personal congratula

tions on the way he has handled this very difficult matter tonight, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will join me in that.
I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary did not prove that what my hon. Friends desire is not already contained in the Croydon Corporation's fair wages clause which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and the Parliamentary Secretary quoted. As I understand it, the Croydon Corporation's fair wages clause provides that a person shall not be required to be either a member or a non-member of a trade union. Very well—the people in this Society are required not to be members of trade unions. That is one of the conditions of eligibility for membership of the Society.
I should have thought—and I put this to my hon Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin)—that it would be rather dangerous to cast doubt on the efficacy of that provision in the Croydon fair wages clause by putting into the Bill other words merely to support what is the general practice and is a condition in every contract into which the Croydon Corporation enters. I hope that I have stated the position clearly.
I know the Croydon Corporation very well, and I have heard a lot of testimonials given to it tonight. I have a good many friends on that Corporation. My only complaint is that so many of them are people whom I would not dare to call "Friends" if they were in the House; they would not be "Friends"—they would be "Gentlemen." That is my chief grievance against the Croydon Corporation, with many of whose members I work in very close association on the governing body of the Whitgift Schools in Croydon. If such a body has gone as far as both the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West have told us, I should have thought it might be a rather serious thing with this particular Bill—when we are assured that the issue is covered in the way which my hon. Friends desire—to insist on putting these words in.

Mr. Parkin: But if my right hon. Friend will forgive me, it surely is not covered in any way. What we are dealing with here is a state of things by which, in certain firms, promotions to the position of foremen and staff are open only to people who are not trade unionists. It


has nothing to do with the fair wages clause. The thing is that we are dealing with firms whose structure is such that, in these modern days, the lowest ranks of supervisory staff are those who are not trade unionists. Whereas the leaders claim to be in favour of trade unionism and to negotiate with trade unionists, the very men who do the supervising at the lowest level are selected because they are not trade unionists.

Mr. Ede: I am afraid that I have not made quite clear to my hon. Friend the point that I have already raised. Let us assume that a firm, whose foremen belong to the Society, get the contract. From what my hon. Friend says, it will not be able to have a foreman on the job because, if he is on the job, it will not be complying with the terms of the contract, namely, that every man employed must be free and must be a trade unionist or a non-trade unionist according to his own desires.

Mr. Herbert Butler: The dilemma is this. If what my right hon. Friend says is true, it means that members of this organisation working for such firms would not be employed on work covered by the fair wages clause. In fact, many of these men are employed by firms which are doing work subject at all times to the fair wages clause.

Mr. Ede: That raises another question. I would have thought from my knowledge of it that the Croydon Corporation would be competent to discharge the duty which it places on itself of seeing that a contract is carried out in accordance with those terms.
Fair wages clauses are frequently very difficult to enforce, and I speak as one who has been chairman of a great local authority and who has on occasion personally taken steps, in connection with the officers of the authority, to make quite certain that the fair wages clause shall be enforced, and, even where we have found that on the mere payment of wages it has not been enforced, to see that where the default has been discovered payment is made to the men who have not been paid according to the local fair wages clause. That is entirely a matter for the local authority and its officers, but there is no doubt from what we have been told—and it has not been challenged, as far as I know—that what my hon. Friends desire is included in every contract for

the sort of work that is contemplated under this Bill.
Were this a corporation that had not such a clause in its contracts, it might not be unwise to insert these words as an Instruction to the Committee. But where we have a corporation whose fair wages clause covers the issue, it would be very unwise to make it appear that that is not a sufficient safeguard, by putting words into the Bill or by giving an Instruction which would make it appear that we do not trust the fair wages clause.

Mr. Parkin: If my right hon. Friend is asking the Parliamentary Secretary for a ruling now and if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say that he agrees with the interpretation that my right hon. Friend is developing, that will help us a great deal, because if we get a ministerial statement to that effect it will kill the offending clause in the constitution of the Foreman and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society better than anything we could have done.

Mr. Carr: I think I am right in saying that any matters which might arise on the application of the fair wages Resolution there is proper machinery laid down, which is, I believe, by way of the Industrial Court. It would be improper for me or for any Minister on the spur of the moment to try to give rulings in these matters. Because these doubts and difficulties were foreseen when we adopted the fair wages Resolution in this House, a proper procedure was laid down for testing any such points which might arise. As I understand the matter, it was in connection with the resolution of any of these complaints and the tests to be applied that the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) gave his undertaking to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred in his speech earlier.
Perhaps before I resume my seat I may thank the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the kind remarks he made, and say that his memory in Mitcham is still very fresh and very warm, regardless of any party considerations whatever.

Mr. Ede: I do not think we can expect the Minister to go beyond that. The Minister, at the end of his speech, quoted the words which were the same as the words quoted by the hon. Member for


Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). I suggest that what the Minister has just said is perfectly fair to everybody. This corporation, through the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, claims that the point is already covered in the contract. I am not going to argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) because he is a lawyer—

Mr. Parkin: Surely that is the sort of man my right hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Ede: It is news to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has any love for lawyers.
I suggest that no matter what may be the case with any other corporation—I am not speaking generally of corporation Bills—the proper thing to do with this one is not to give the Instruction here lest it should weaken the validity of the Croydon clause. No doubt as a result of this discussion, a very close watch will be made by the Croydon Corporation and by the unions that may be interested in making quite sure that the clause is watertight.
If there is cause for complaint on the ground that some man who is not free of his own volition to belong or not to belong to a trade union is employed, let the union aggrieved take the matter to the industrial court or other proper tribunal if the Croydon Corporation does not say, "We regard this as a breach of our fair wages clause." That seems to me to be the wisest thing to do in the circumstances of this Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service on his maiden speech at the Box. He spoke with lucidity and charm, but, if I may say so, his speech was unsatisfactory. It was unsatisfactory because, although he avoided saying anything that might be stigmatised as being reactionary, he equally carefully avoided saying anything which might be welcomed as being progressive. He carefully avoided deprecating a practice which I am sure, as he becomes experienced in his

office, he will realise is a practice which is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Until I saw the hon. Gentleman tonight, I had hoped that we were equally united against discriminatory practices directed solely against trade unions. But what has emerged from the course of the debate—and for which we are particularly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—is a point of some difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to deal with it, but what impressed me most and raised a doubt in my mind was the hon. Gentleman's reference to the steps being taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs).
While I have no reason to change my own view about this matter, I think that in the circumstances, if these discussions are proceeding, it might be as well to find out how far they are going—this is important, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about legislation—and whether there may be an opportunity for dealing with this matter generally rather than in this particular instance. Reference has been made to the steps being taken. I hope that these will develop satisfactorily and that a better formula will be found to resolve this difficulty.

8.10 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I will not detain the House for more than a minute because the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has already expressed, with much greater knowledge and eloquence than I could command, the points which I had intended to make. I can imagine circumstances in which a suggestion of this nature might be justifiable in a Private Bill, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that it would be appropriate in the case of Croydon. I can also imagine circumstances in which more general legislation might be a matter for consideration, but I can only repeat that it would be very unfortunate indeed if this Motion were to be passed by the House in connection with the Croydon Corporation Bill.

Mr. J. Silverman: I have listened with great respect to what has been said by the hon. Members for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and


Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and by the Parliamentary Secretary and I want again to emphasise that this Instruction is in no sense intended as a reflection upon Croydon Corporation or as an obstruction to the passage of the Bill.

Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make a second speech?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It is not in order for him to speak a second time, but I called him because I thought he was rising to take a certain course and to explain his reasons for doing so.

Mr. Silverman: I was about to explain my reasons. I am not at all satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that this is a matter for general application and general legislation. Indeed, I insist that it is a matter for legislation and not one which can be dealt with by negotiation. We have here a situation in which one man has a bludgeon and another man has not, and then we tell them to negotiate.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am loath to intervene in the hon. Member's speech, but he has no right to make a second speech.

Mr. Silverman: I am not making a second speech. I am about to take a certain course in a very few moments, and I am explaining why I shall take it.
Whilst I am completely dissatisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we have at any rate heard that certain talks are proceeding between my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) and the present Minister. We can only hope that these will be fruitful. In the light of this information and after consultation with my colleagues, I propose to ask leave to withdraw this Motion, but I want to make it quite clear that that is without prejudice to our right to raise the matter again on some future Bill if, in the meantime, the results are unsatisfactory. This is a matter of general consideration upon which something ought to be done, and I hope that the Ministry of Labour will do it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 68.
Clause 68 reads:
(1) Any agreement entered into between the Corporation and the parent or guardian of a pupil at any secondary school may make provision for the payment by such parent or guardian to the Corporation of any sum not exceeding ten pounds in the event of the pupil ceasing without reasonable cause to attend such school before the date fixed by such agreement for the pupil to cease such attendance and the Corporation shall be entitled without proof of any actual damage incurred by reason of such pupil ceasing to attend such school to recover from such parent or guardian any sum not exceeding the sum specified in the agreement which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.
This Clause is a relic of times past, when it was possible for a local education authority or the proprietor of a private school to claim damages if a child were withdrawn in contravention of an agreement entered into when the child joined the school. The Education Act of 1944 laid an obligation on local education authorities to provide secondary school education for children of suitable age, aptitude and ability, and I suggest that that obligation does away entirely with this kind of damage which could be complained against in the courts before 1944. Indeed, that argument is sustained by the words in the Clause "without proof of any actual damage."
Although the Clause applies to secondary schools and there is no specific mention in the Education Act, 1944, of grammar schools, in effect it means entry to a grammar school. This is not a simple problem and not one which can be satisfactorily dealt with in this way. No evidence has been adduced that such a provision is working satisfactorily in those areas where corporations or local education authorities have obtained Private Acts incorporating such a Clause.
Indeed, the problem of early leaving from secondary schools was referred by the then Minister of Education at the end of 1952 to the Central Advisory Council for Education which, after studying the matter for two years, produced a report entitled "Early Leaving" which went into the matter exhaustively. It is a fact, I think, that although this problem was acute in the immediate post-war years, it has declined by 50 per cent. in the last


five or six years. The chief recommendation of the Central Advisory Council to the Minister was that they did not recommend
the general adoption of school-life agreements.
It has been said on behalf of the Minister in the House that he accepts that view. I would stress that Parliament has never been asked for these powers in the House by any Minister of the Crown.
Paragraph 36 of the Report says that about 20 per cent. of the children entering a grammar school in a particular year "will do pretty badly." Those are the words of the Central Advisory Council. If this 20 per cent.—one-in-five—do pretty badly, we ought to expect a problem of early leavers, but what we find in practice, according to the last Report issued by the Ministry of Education, is that the percentage of early leavers is 13·5 per cent., only two-thirds of the number we might expect to leave before completing the school course.
I do not want to make a long speech, although I feel rather strongly about this matter. As I have told the House before, I was a district education officer and had to enforce such agreements before the war. I have the painful recognition of some of my constituents who have been denied grammar school education, because their parents were not prepared to sign an agreement of this kind. I ask the Croydon Corporation to consider this matter very carefully indeed.
What does the Corporation propose to do for the 20 per cent. of children who go into the schools each year and will do "pretty badly"? We cannot tell when a child enters a school what he or she will be like in two, three, or four years' time from an educational standpoint. I do not want to labour the point, but one of the justifications for the Clause is said to be that there is a waste of public money through children leaving school before completing the school course. I would suggest there is also a considerable waste of public money in forcing children to stay at school for five years when demonstrably they are doing "pretty badly."
The Clause says that the penalty would be paid to the Corporation
without proof of any actual damage…
and goes on to add:
any sum…which the court may think fit to award.…

I ask the hon. Members for Croydon whether they are sure that every case of that kind would go to a court. In my experience before the war only one case in twenty years went to the county court. Penalties were imposed by school governors who sat in private and there was no question of going to any court.
The Central Advisory Council speaks of the doubtful validity of a Clause of this kind. As I mentioned in a recent debate, the same point was made by an eminent counsel before a Committee of this House. In these circumstances, I beg the House to support me in asking the hon. Members for Croydon, on behalf of their Corporation, to accept this Instruction.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to second the Motion.
The last time we debated this issue of school life agreements I think the House was much moved and influenced by a speech from one of my hon. Friends who described how his own child, only by exceedingly good fortune, managed to secure a place at a grammar school and he feared at one time that she would not get such a place. He spoke of the natural indignation he felt in later years against parents who allowed their children to take up grammar school places and then threw those places away by taking the children away too early. When that history was related to us I think we all felt a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) will agree that he and I and, I think, everyone who has considered the matter regards it as a very great wrong which parents do their children if they take them away before the school course is completed. As I have said, the House was much moved—moved to a point at which it did not really consider the actual question at issue. We are not deciding now whether it is wrong to take away a child prematurely from a grammar school. We are agreed on that, but we are considering whether this particular device of a school life agreement is a useful instrument in combating the evil of early leaving. I want to put very soberly to the House the suggestion that there is no evidence to suggest that it is.
There is some evidence to suggest that the device is positively harmful and that the weight of informed opinion is solidly against it. From his administrative experience my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has found this Clause to be positively harmful in operation. By being required to sign a paper with a monetary penalty, the exceptionally prudent or timid might be frightened from sending their children to grammar schools. Some of the families affected are those where the parents have had no educational advantages at all, and, perhaps, have only struggled into literacy. Now their children show great promise and there is the possibility of them going to grammar schools. Then the parents are faced with something they have probably dreaded all their lives, having to sign a piece of paper which may let them in for a penalty. To parents who have not had much educational advantage themselves that signing is a real deterrent. It may be that prudent and timid parents have a child who might have made a valuable member of a grammar school.
The Clause may be effective for ill and will certainly be ineffective for good. Against what kind of parents is it aimed? It is against the parent who cheerfully takes advantage of the fact that the child has a grammar school place, sends the child there and, the moment it appears that the child could earn a little more outside and is above the immediate statutory leaving age, takes the child away. That kind of parent would sign any undertaking in the cheerful knowledge that nowadays the child would earn sufficient to make the penalty derisory.
A Clause of this kind draws a distinction between a secondary grammar and a secondary modern school. In debates earlier today it was said, either by the Minister of Education or the Parliamentary Secretary, that it was important to keep up the status of the modern school. I do not think anyone would dispute that 75 per cent. of our fellow countrymen are educated in those schools. It is already a problem to see that they have proper status and respect.
If it is to be laid down that there is one kind of secondary school in relation to which parents have to sign a special piece of paper and there is talk of a £10 penalty, but that no one really cares whether the child is kept at a second-

dary modern school after the age of 15 it is not a good thing for the secondary modern school and is working against the idea of parity of esteem. Perhaps the most serious consideration of all is the danger that local authorities will suppose that once they include a Clause like this in a Bill they solve the problem of early leaving, whereas, in fact, they do nothing in that direction at all.
There is plenty of evidence on which the usefulness of Clauses of this kind can be tested. There are, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne knows better than I—about two dozen authorities throughout the country who have Clauses like this in operation. They are authorities of different types, in different parts of the country and of different social background. One can compare their record of early leaving with the record of early leaving of authorities which do not have these Clauses. To the best of my knowledge, the result of such a comparison is that there is not the slightest correlation between a Clause of this kind and whether an authority has early leaving or not. It is quite impossible to adduce any evidence to suggest that Clauses of this kind help to cope with the problem of early leaving; and as I have said, they have disadvantages.
An authority might be tempted into the mistaken belief that by inserting a Clause of this kind it is doing something socially useful when, in fact, it is not doing any such thing. It may be blinded by that to the fact that there are constructive and useful things that it can do to help deal with the problem of early leaving. I do not propose to weary the House by repeating what they are, for they are all discussed in the excellent Report on Early Leaving, to which my hon. Friend referred.
I do not believe that any authority could come forward and say, "To the best of our resources and ability, we have taken all the constructive measures described in the Early Leaving Report and they have still failed. Therefore, we must have a penalty." No authority takes up that position. To any authority which is concerned about early leaving, I would say that I sympathise and share its concern, but I would ask it to solve the problem by constructive and modern remedies and not by a remedy that is


purely negative in conception and which the evidence shows to be ineffective at the best and, at the worst, positively harmful in action.
We were told earlier today by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that a similar Report has been prepared on the problem of early leaving in Scotland. When he explained this to hon. Members, the Committee re-echoed with cries of praise for the excellent Report on Early Leaving that had been prepared in England. What is the sense of the Ministry of Education appointing a high-powered Committee, composed of people with wide practical and philosophic knowledge of education, asking them to consider a problem and then taking an early opportunity to go flat in the face of one of their own recommendations? It really is not a sensible way to behave.
I earnestly join the plea of my hon. Friend that the Members for Croydon, recognising that we are as concerned as they to deal with the problem of early leaving, will decide that they will be making a more constructive approach to this policy and will be able to go from this House with more good will if they decide not to use this outmoded and ineffective weapon for the purpose they have in hand.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. F. Harris: I assure the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who moved the Motion for an Instruction to leave out Clause 68, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who seconded, that the Croydon authority will give the most careful consideration to everything that is said here tonight. I leave the general issue, on which we all know the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne holds sincere views, to be answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, confining myself to comment specifically on Croydon's attitude to this matter.
We have all studied carefully the speeches made during the debate on the Gloucestershire County Council Bill, when this matter was fully discussed. I presume that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne feels so strongly about the question that he will continue to raise the issue on any similar Bill which incorporates this kind of Clause.

We in Croydon seem to be a little unfortunate in that we are at the receiving end of such attacks. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Member that we fully appreciate his great sincerity on this issue.
By Clause 68, the Croydon Corporation merely wants to make provision in any agreement with the parent or guardian of a pupil at a secondary school for payment by such person of a
sum not exceeding ten pounds in the event of the pupil ceasing without reasonable cause"—
I stress, "without reasonable cause"—
to attend…school before the…
end of the agreed period. The Clause makes it clear that the Corporation may recover such sum as the court may think reasonable, not exceeding an amount specified in the agreement.
The Corporation's present practice in this matter requires parents to sign an agreement which contains the following clause:
The guardian will not withdraw nor take steps with a view to withdrawing the pupil from the school before the end of the final year of the school course without consent of the Education Committee, and in the event of any breach of this condition the guardian will pay to the Corporation the sum of £5.
That is the clause in operation at the moment.
The number of pupils attending the secondary schools in the borough who are over the statutory school-leaving age of 15, and who have not yet completed their five-year course, is approximately 614 in academic schools and approximately 152 in technical schools. Over the past four years the average number of withdrawals of such pupils before the completion of their five-year course is about 45 academic students and 11 technical students.
In 50 per cent. of those cases the Corporation felt that there was very good reason for the withdrawal, a reason which, in itself, would have satisfied the Corporation at any time. In cases where no satisfactory reason is given, however, the parent is requested to pay this monetary penalty of £5 under the existing arrangements. In some cases it is paid automatically by the parent or guardian concerned. At the present time, the request for the money is not pressed so far as the taking of legal proceedings.
The cost of the withdrawal of such a pupil is difficult for the Corporation


to estimate, but the Corporation immediately loses the £6 per annum Treasury grant because of the withdrawal. There has also to be considered the waste of grammar school places when courses are not completed. Obviously, the withdrawal is a deliberate breach of the arrangement by the parent or guardian concerned, and such a breach could obviously have a cumulative, snowball effect which would tend to undermine the organisation of the school, especially of its fifth-year form.
Unfortunately, some parents are prepared to sign this existing school agreement which applies in Croydon without intending seriously to keep to it, if it should not be convenient to them to do so. The Croydon Corporation feels that in such cases the penalty is a deterrent to a breach of the agreement.
I do not want to take up more of the time of the House. I trust that the House will support Croydon Corporation in this matter. I can assure hon. Members that the Corporation takes a very reasonable attitude in this matter. I trust the House will refuse the suggestion to delete Clause 68, which the local education committee and education officials think would be an advantageous Clause.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the wording of the Clause? It says:
…the Corporation shall be entitled without proof of any actual damage incurred by reason of such pupil ceasing to attend such school to recover from such parent or guardian any sum not exceeding the sum specified in the agreement which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.
I think that the hon. Member has already said that Croydon Corporation, under its existing powers, has not gone to court in a single case.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member is quite right. Nevertheless, although the Corporation has not thought it necessary to take legal proceedings hitherto, it feels that the Clause would act as a sufficient deterrent and would assist it in seeing its task through. I hope that hon. Members will support the Corporation.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) in supporting the desire of Croydon Corporation to have this Clause in the Bill. I was for many years chairman of an

education committee in a large industrial town, and I fail to understand the argument of my hon. Friends who oppose the clause. At present, children are compelled by law to attend school until they are fifteen and a penalty is imposed for breaking that law. We on this side of the House have argued for years in favour of making the compulsory school-leaving age sixteen when the economic circumstances of the country allow that to be done. In the light of that policy, therefore, I cannot understand the argument against the Clause.

Mr. Hayman: Surely my hon. Friend will do me the justice of crediting me with supporting my party's policy in favour of raising the school-leaving age to sixteen.

Mr. Blyton: If we are agreed that we should raise the school-leaving age to sixteen but that owing to economic circumstances that cannot be achieved at present, surely we should be in favour of getting part of the way towards that objective in this instance. When children sit for the eleven-plus examination a list is prepared of the marks obtained and of the available number of places. The parents of the children who are high on the list are interviewed. Places in the secondary school are awarded to those children in accordance with the marks obtained and on the undertaking given by the parents that the children will remain at school until they are sixteen years of age.
If a parent said that a child would be leaving school at fifteen, the education committee would not allocate that place to that child. The place would go to the child next on the list of marks whose parents were prepared to give the undertaking. I do not see why a parent who had given this undertaking when the child was eleven years of age should not be required to keep the, undertaking at a time when local authorities are restricted by lack of accommodation in their efforts to extend their educational facilities.
There is a commercial school in my constituency where children are taught typing, shorthand and English. Children are allowed to sit the entrance examination at thirteen, but it is a condition that the parents must undertake to keep those children at school until they are sixteen. A child who has failed to obtain a scholarship to a secondary school at eleven-plus has a second chance of a


scholarship to this school at thirteen. If we allowed parents to disregard their obligation to keep the children in school until they are sixteen many of our schools would be in a state of chaos.
In some cases parents, regardless of the welfare and educational future of their child, try to send it out to work in order to increase the total income of the home. By putting this Clause in the Bill, Croydon is protecting that child against its parents who, by sending it into industry, may cause it to lose another year of secondary education.
In the technical world today the most important thing for a boy or girl to have is the School Leaving Certificate. That now seems to be the passport to many jobs in the industrial and technical world. So we must take care that our children shall have that passport, and, if necessary, they must be protected from being put into industry twelve months too soon. Therefore, we must ensure that no child is robbed of a place in a secondary school simply because its parents will not carry out the contract into which they have entered. Because of the reasons I have given, and because of the inconsistent attitude of my hon. Friend about the school-leaving age, I support the Clause.

8.46 p.m

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My intervention will be of the briefest nature because, as the House knows, this issue was fully discussed on 26th January in the debate on the Gloucestershire County Council Bill [Lords]. I might also add that more than half of the Manchester Ship Canal lies in my constituency. I said earlier, and I repeat it tonight, that it must be our policy to encourage the appropriate pupils to stay on beyond school-leaving age. The central Advisory Council to the Ministry recently produced a report showing what measures they consider necessary to discourage early leaving. That much is agreed between all sides of the House.
From that report it is clear that the position has improved since before the war and has been steadily improving in each recent year. However, this did not deter the Central Advisory Council from putting forward many positive suggestions for further improvements. They are eighteen in number and they are

listed in pages 61 to 63 of the report. In part, they provide the answer to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). Many of these are for implementation by local authorities, by employers and by trade unions, but nothing is as important—and I repeat now what I said earlier—as the change in the climate of opinion on the part of some parents who are at present reluctant to allow their children to stay on at school. In the earlier debate the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) advocated a further measure which would involve legislation, and which, in any case, would not provide the complete solution of our problem.
My right hon. Friend regards the suggestions in that report, together with any help he may be able to give, as the right way of tackling the problem of early leaving. The general view of my right hon. Friend is that premature leaving is better dealt with by persuasion than by a clause of this nature. Nevertheless, it is a fact—as has been brought to the notice of this House—that some local authorities who feel that it will take time to implement these measures or who have special local difficulties, have been able to take this power of introducing school-life agreements during recent years. There are now twenty-three or twenty-four such clauses in operation.
For that reason I do not think I was inconsistent when I said in the debate on the Gloucestershire County Council Bill that my right hon. Friend was not enthusiastic about these agreements, although he appreciates that there may be local conditions which provide an exception to this general rule. On that occasion the House decided to allow further consideration of this point on the Committee stage and hon. Members must decide for themselves if the Croydon Bill now before the House deserves similar consideration. In coming to their decision, it may be of some interest for them to know that the percentage of children going to grammar schools in Croydon, according to the figures of the Ministry, is 20·5 per cent., which is more or less the national average.
It is even more important to note, again according to the figures of the Ministry, that the proportion of children leaving grammar schools in Croydon below the age of sixteen is much lower than the average for England as a whole. In fact,


it seems—and this may be for the reason advanced by my hon. Friend—that the parents of Croydon are not prone to take their children away from school prematurely. Therefore, I do not intend to advise the House either to support or to oppose the Clause. It is for hon. Members to decide against the general background which I have described whether my hon. Friend has made his case.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity to add that other local authorities which are considering taking this power might like to note my right hon. Friend's lack of enthusiasm for it, and might be advised to consider if there is special need before they subject such a clause to the displeasure of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I would add that perhaps the hon. Member will for his part, discriminate in his opposition to any clauses which may be forthcoming in the future.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sorry to have to oppose my two hon. Friends, but I believe that Clause 68 should remain in the Bill. It is worded in a reasonable way, and the House would be ill-advised to remove it.
When a child goes to a grammar school, its parent signs a declaration that he will keep the child there until it reaches the age of 16. It seems to me that the parent who takes his child away before it reaches 16 years of age is committing a breach of contract. If the authority wished to bring an action against the parent, I take it that it would have to prove damage to itself. Obviously, it cannot do that, because the damage is to the child. I am sorry to say that a great many children still need protecting from their parents.
It is often argued against this kind of penalty clause that there may be family circumstances which make it almost imperative that the child should be allowed to leave school and become another breadwinner in the family. The clause is flexible enough to cater for that kind of child. It uses the words:
…the pupil ceasing without reasonable cause to attend…
I take it that family circumstances of the, sort I have mentioned would be regarded

by the court as reasonable cause for the child leaving school before the age of 16.

Mr. Ede: Does my hon. Friend think that the authority ought to give an adequate maintenance grant in such a case?

Mr. Short: I was about to refer to that matter.
In most areas adequate maintenance grants, and grants for books and all sorts of other things, are given, and parents receive family allowances. The Gracious Speech promised a Bill to extend family allowances to cover children remaining at school. We have not yet seen that legislation, but I hope that we shall do so in the near future.
The child who goes to a grammar school is highly privileged. Only 20 per cent. of our children manage to secure places, and in some areas the percentage is less than 12. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to a secondary modern school in Middlesex and spoke about highly intelligent children in that school's A stream who would almost certainly have been able to profit by grammar school education, but there were not enough places in the grammar schools for them, or for some other reason, they found themselves in secondary modern schools. It is, therefore, very important that children who go to grammar schools should stay for the full course.

Mr. Hayman: Will my hon. Friend comment on the statement by the Central Advisory Council for Education that one in five of the children who enter grammar schools does pretty badly?

Mr. Ede: More than one in five Members of Parliament would do pretty badly.

Mr. Short: If what my hon. Friend says is the case, it is a shocking indictment of the method of selection, and it is high time we got rid of the whole show and had common secondary schools to which all our children could go. However, that is another point, and I shall not argue that case now.
Most of the children who leave school at the age of 15 do so because they have been offered a high wage in industry or elsewhere, sometimes in a dead-end occupation. Parents fall for the lure of the high wages, and the children are


withdrawn from school. I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Mr. Hayman)—I know that he is as concerned about this as I am, but we regard it from different viewpoints—that the grammar school course is not completed by the time the child reaches 15, it is a minimum course of five years, and is arranged on that basis. A child withdrawn three-quarters of the way through the course has not completed the course, and that is the important thing to remember.
These children are selected, and the local authorities go to tremendous lengths nowadays to take great care in their selection. They have psychologists, psychiatrists, selection boards and goodness knows what in order to make sure that they do the job of selection properly. The children are selected so that they will profit by the full grammar school course, and, in view of that fact, I think the local authorities should be given the power sought in this Bill, to use it if it is required. I think that Clause 68 is drawn in such a flexible and sensible way that the House would be very ill-advised to delete it from the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill promoted by the Manchester Ship Canal Company until action is taken by the Company to co-ordinate the times of opening and closing of the bridges over the Manchester Ship Canal so as to give maximum convenience both to road users and to canal users.
It used to be said that when people, especially working people, were elected to the House of Commons, that was the last that was heard of them and that they forgot the people to whom they belonged. We shall provide evidence tonight that that is not so, and we hope to provide further evidence later on.
The motives of my hon. Friends and I who have put their names to this Amendment are the most reasonable that I have ever known to lay behind a proposal of this kind. Unlike many people, who opposed it for years, as the history of the Manchester Ship Canal can prove, I was privileged to be a close friend of one of the greatest supporters of the Canal in its very difficult days. I refer to Alderman Thomas Grindle.
I want to express my appreciation of the service which we have received from the Private Bill Office. As far as the Manchester Ship Canal Company and its representatives are concerned, they conducted their case above board and with great courtesy, which we appreciate. In presenting our case, we shall reciprocate, and we hope that others will do so from now on.
I contrast the line which we are now taking with the pre-war experience of the late Colonel Josiah Wedgwood, Arthur Hollins and myself with the North Staffordshire Transport Bill. I was born between the Bridgewater Canal and the Manchester Ship Canal. I have always lived in that district, and I belong to the people who live there. I remember Trafford Park when it was a place of


beauty, containing woods, a lake, a lovely hall and, later, a golf course and aerodrome. The bridges about which we shall complain served their purpose in those days. My grandfather, who had a pony and trap, used to travel from farm to farm for work with threshing engines.
My father and those of his generation, when they worked at British Westinghouse, used to complain about the bridges. I was glad of the bridges for more than twenty-five years, but the seriousness of the situation increases as the years roll by. Anyone acquainted with the facts of the case would be bound to support us tonight. Thousands of people have complained and hundreds have tried to use their influence to bring about improvements and, at last, the matter is brought to the Floor of the House of Commons. It has come from trades councils, town councils and Lancashire County Council. I hope that from the House of Commons we shall at last obtain justice and decent treatment for the many people who are affected.
It is in the public interest that our case should be accepted. Its acceptance would save hundreds of production man hours and productivity, about which so many speeches are made, would tend to increase. We are dealing with an area about which Air Chief Marshal Harris said to Mr. Ernest Bevin, after the war, that had he been in charge of the German Air Force, he would have spent two weeks on Trafford Park in order to saturate it and knock out the bridges.
In a long article in September, 1952, the Manchester Guardian dealt with the problem and I propose to read one or two extracts. The article is headed:
New Bridge Over the Ship Canal Still a Vision.
Planners' 21 Years of Frustration.
I and thousands of others share that frustration. The article goes on:
The traffic delays of 1931 gave the first warning that this narrow, 50-year-old structure—an outstanding engineering achievement in its day—was becoming an anachronism and was slowly strangling the free movement of vehicles through one of the only two northern approaches to Trafford Park—the other being Trafford Bridge. The trickle of traffic which the bridge threatened to choke in the 1930's soon developed into a stream and the stream has now become a torrent which, during morning and evening peak hours, is partially dammed by the swing bridge, at a cost in wasted man-hours, petrol, and oil that is difficult to estimate. Just before the war,

questions were asked in the House. The matter was not raised again until 1946, when growing complaints about delays penetrated the House of Commons.
To show that this is not just my complaint, I want to quote from a public spirited and conscientious official of the Lancashire County Council, Mr. James Drake, the County Surveyor, who, in 1952, said in his report:
Consultations have been held with the Manchester Ship Canal Company in an effort to reach agreement on some means of mitigating the consequent interruption of road traffic flow. In spite of the Company's efforts to improve the position, however, it has been found quite impossible to meet the legitimate demands of both road and canal traffic…The inadequacy of the bridge to discharge its functions properly is a serious matter…Over 150 firms, employing a total number of approximately 60,000 workers, are operating inside an area of well under four square miles.
The activities and products of these various firms are vital to the industrial structure of the country. The restrictions imposed upon their activities by the existing swing bridge are many and important. For example, in regard to labour, the homes of a large number of the workpeople concerned are situated north of the Ship Canal. Their normal route to and from work is via the swing bridge and whether they he on foot, cycle or motor vehicle, this adds considerably to the congestion, particularly at peak hours.
The average volume of traffic across the bridge amounted to 9,600 vehicles per day in 1952, and it is much more now. This excludes cycles. This volume would be far greater were it not for the fact that the existing bridge is a notorious bottleneck.
Between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m., which is when the men and women are going to work—the people who are doing the main work of manufacturing products for export, upon which we all depend—the number of closures was 6,180, or 88 per cent. of the total. That is an average of nearly 17 times per day, during a period when the main volume of road traffic is using the bridge. This report was based upon conditions of light traffic and long days. Conditions are worse now.
I want to place on record the fact that progress has been made. I give credit where it is due. First, the greatest credit is due to Sam Radcliffe, Mr. Mycoe, Alderman J. K. Walker, the late Town Clerk of Eccles, the Eccles Town Council and Eccles Trades Council, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), in particular, and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey). A high-level bridge is to


be built—or it was to be built, before the Chancellor's statement last Friday—which will relieve long-distance traffic. I want to make it quite clear that the new high-level bridge will be welcomed, but it will not solve the problems of which I am speaking.

Mr. H. Boardman: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the high-level bridge project at Barton will not now go on?

Mr. Smith: I did not say that. What I said is on record, and it will be quite clear. I said that a high-level bridge was to be built. It is proceeding to be carried out, but whether it will continue after the Chancellor's statement last week is a matter which the future will prove. Is that quite clear?

Mr. Boardman: Yes.

Mr. Smith: This bridge will be welcome, but it will not solve the problems with which I am concerned. It will ease the difficulties, but it will be no solution. The high-level bridge will be three quarters of a mile away from the place of which I am speaking. In addition, there will be a climb to reach it, and it will take time to reach. There are also other difficulties which I shall mention later, and which have been brought to light as a result of boring holes—such as the danger of mining subsidence. Local traffic will still tend to go over the swing bridge, and the men and women who do the work will go over it. They will not climb heights.
While the high-level bridge will relieve the through traffic, it will not solve the problems I am putting before the House. In addition to that, according to the authorities it will be three years before the project is properly started. It will then take another three years to build. If we add to that the economic and financial difficulties arising out of the way the country is being managed, it will be in the "sweet by-and-by" before the bridge is finished.
This is a very serious matter. Many bus services use the bridges in this area. First, there is the Salford City Service which runs to places as far away as Broughton, Deansgate, Pendleton, Swinton and Weaste. They all go over Trafford Bridge. Then there is the Lancashire United Transport Company,

which runs to places as far as Bolton, Leigh, Caddishead, Irlam, Eccles and all its districts, Swinton, Walkden, Worsley, and Farnworth. In addition, some of these bus services have to connect with trains at the Victoria and Exchange Stations at Manchester, Eccles, Odsal Lane, and other places. They are delayed by the bridges, often for a quarter of an hour, and sometimes as much as half an hour. If any hon. Member doubts that, let him be good enough to say so. We have nothing to lose. We want to focus a searchlight upon this issue. The more the searchlight is focused on it the more pleased will be those of us who come from this area.
I have here details of all the services going into one firm. This firm is not playing about with a few people doing this and that and "playing at marbles." It has 25,000 employees and manufactures some of the largest engineering products for all parts of the world, including atomic energy products, turbines and electrical apparatus of all kinds.
One of the difficulties of dealing with such a matter in the House and not in Committee is that in Committee we can get down to details. In the House we cannot do that, so I must content myself by showing this chart and saying that all these different colours represent different bus services running through two bottlenecks into Trafford Park—one of the most important industrial areas in the country. I regard it as a privilege to speak for the thousands of people there who have toiled so well for so long.
Running into the Barton Bridge bottleneck—that bridge closes on an average about 19 times a day—are at least 14 bus services-9,600 vehicles a day. The road is only 17 ft. wide—as wide as it was when we had ponies and traps and wagonettes. Over the Salford Traffic Road Bridge 11 bus services go into Trafford Park.
To show that this is a matter of concern not only to ordinary people but to managements and directors, I quote the following letter which I received the other day from the director of a big company. It is dated 16th February, and reads:
Whilst you are dealing with the hold up at Barton Bridge would you also have in mind the hold up at Trafford Road Bridge. Last Thursday evening, February 9th, at approximately 5.45 I was held up, also on Friday morning, lunch and tea time…It is to


the two evening times I wish to draw your attention, the traffic at this time is at its peak, and when the bridge closes it builds up on both sides as far as the eye can see and there is utter chaos.
It says that most of the vessels concerned are coasters. Any hon. Member who doubts the authenticity of that letter may examine it.
Our request is made on behalf of thousands of workpeople. Scores of managements—and let me emphasise that, because it is irrespective of political differences—support our cause, as do many local authorities. This is one of the most reasonable requests that I have ever heard made in relation to a Private Bill. I am fairly familiar with the history of the Private Bills that have passed through the House. I familiarised myself with their history in order to understand the function of the House. I remember that Instructions galore were issued to Select Committees when private interests were at stake. This time the request is made on behalf of a public, and not a narrow interest. We ask only that no ship shall be allowed to leave Salford docks, Barton locks or any Manchester Ship Canal wharf at a time which would mean closing the bridge at the times we have set out.
Here is where I differ with the Manchester Ship Canal case. It is a most reasoned case of which I have made a careful analysis, but there is one point with which I differ. I am not one who has got his living by talking. I take second place to no one in recognising the great responsibility of the men who pilot the ships along the canal. Therefore, I say that there was no need to include the reasoned case which refers to ships being held up in the fairway or in the canal. It would not be fair to the pilots of the ships to ask for that case.
What we are asking for is that the Ship Canal shall control the traffic so that it shall not leave the locks or docks or wharves at any time so as seriously to interfere with the thousands of men and women proceeding to their employment in Trafford Park. Does any hon. Member fail to accept the reasonableness of such a request? Apparently there is none. I presume, therefore, that there is unanimity on this case which we are presenting, and I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
These times, I admit, may not suit everybody. I plead guilty to stating our case in the most reasonable, irreducible minimum terms, and if I am open to criticism it is because I have not proposed other times. I was not surprised when I received a telegram from the convenor of the shop stewards at Platts, in Barton, who said:
Your times do not fit in with factories starting at 8 a.m. and finishing at 5.30 p.m. Suggest 6.50 to 7.50 a.m. and 4.50 to 5.50 p.m.
I hope that this debate will stimulate interest among the authorities and all those concerned with this matter so that they may get together and consider the proposals which we have made.
Let me conclude by dealing with the reasoned case prepared by the Manchester Ship Canal Company. It states that the company is concerned about seven bridges. In this debate we are concerned with only two—the Barton Road Bridge and the Trafford Road Bridge. Section 33 of the 1885 Act, which determines the company's responsibility, places it under an obligation to see that such bridges
shall be kept closed at all times except when required to be opened for the passage of vessels and shall at such times be kept open only so long as shall be reasonably necessary for such passage.
Let me emphasise that that was in 1885. This is 71 years later and no longer does that restriction suit modern conditions. Seventy-one years ago few people crossed the bridge. There were few vehicles and certainly no cars, lorries or buses. Now 25,000 people work in one place in Trafford Park and thousands at several others, such as at Taylor Bros., Turner Bros., and other places. Approximately 70,000 people are now employed at Trafford Park.
By the provisions of the 1885 Act and subsequent Acts, a closing time limit of ten minutes is imposed on the Barton Bridge and fifteen minutes in respect of the Trafford Bridge. All that we ask is that the 1956 needs and not the 1885 needs shall be met in this Bill.
The Manchester Ship Canal case makes much of the high-level bridge. For forty years some of us have made our contribution towards that new bridge. I admit that it would be a big step forward, but it will not solve the problems with which we are dealing. In that view we are supported by the Manchester Ship


Canal Company which states in its reasoned case, in page 2:
Barton Bridge presents a special problem in view of the Trafford Park Industrial Estate.
In page 2 of the Manchester Ship Canal Company's case it is stated that
the company have endeavoured to meet the convenience of road users by refraining from swinging the bridge for the passage of tugs, barges and small craft during the following periods…
This is our case: the times at which we state the bridge should not be turned form a most reasonable request. That is all we ask in presenting our case this evening.
The limitation about which the Company speaks in its reasoned case does not apply to ocean-going vessels. This is a fundamental difference between us. In my view and in the view of some of the most responsible authorities in this area, it is time that it did apply to those cases, and it could do so if the authorities were prepared to control the traffic.
The Company refers to the difficulties of the tidal section and unberthed and unmoored craft, but that does not apply in the case about which we speak. All we ask is that the canal traffic shall be controlled to avoid the limited times which we specify, and controlled in the way which I have indicated. Surely this is a most reasonable request to make. We cannot accept page 4 of the Manchester Ship Canal Company's case. The answer is that the Company refers to the 1885 Act and we desire to modernise the Act and to cater for 1956 needs.
I refer, next, to the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1885, page 33, Section 33—"Powers as to opening bridges." This Act has to be read to be believed. I spent some time in the Library last night reading it, and to anyone especially interested in the historical development of our country it would well repay his time to read the history behind this Ship Canal. I am sorry that I have been so slow as not to read it years ago. The Act reads:
Provided that all such bridges shall be kept closed at all times except when required to be open for the passage of vessels and shall at such times be kept open only so long as shall be reasonably necessary for such passage.
I therefore claim that the 1885 Act is on our side. We have been slow not to

seize upon that Act and put upon it the 1956 interpretation instead of the outworn 1885 interpretation which has been placed upon it for far too long. This 1885 interpretation suited when Trafford Park was a park. It suited in 1885. We want it to be interpreted to suit 1956.
We then come to the "daddy" of the passages from the Act. I quote from page 213, Section 126 (15), of the 1885 Act. The heading is:
For the protection of Sir Humphrey de Trafford, Baronet and the De Trafford Estate.
It says:
The swing bridge…shall not be kept open at any one time for a longer period than ten minutes…
I should like hon. Members to read Hooley's "Confessions."

Mr. L. M. Lever: Who is Hooley?

Mr. Smith: Hooley was Terence Hooley. Hooley had a secretary named Ellis. Mr. Marshall Stevens, whom you remember, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House for a very long time, and who played a great part in this area, sent word to another man named Ellis that Trafford Park was likely to be for sale. Instead of that Ellis receiving it, Hooley's Ellis received it. [Laughter.] The result was that he bought it and made £1 million by selling it back to Trafford Park Estates. Now laugh.

Mr. Jack Jones: Who were the solicitors?

Mr. Smith: Do not draw me into that. I do not want anyone to take this personally—I know who is who in the House. Those of us who have had experience of workmen's compensation know that the less we are reminded of that the better.
This swing bridge was kept open for the protection of Sir Humphrey de Trafford. We ask that it should be kept open so that thousands of people going to their employment shall not be inconvenienced to the extent they have been inconvenienced in the past sixteen years.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: I beg to second the Motion.
We have listened to a very powerful case for something being done quickly to relieve the situation described by my


hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis-Smith). I am bound to say that we have made very great progress with the high-level bridge. It has been conceded by the Government to be a matter of high priority, and, so far as we know, that project is going on. I was a little alarmed to hear my hon. Friend refer to something the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, but I think we can all take it that that great construction will be proceeded with at all speed. I could not imagine anyone wishing at this moment to delay it, especially after the unanimous support the project has received from all Lancashire Members and the tremendous case put up to the previous Minister of Transport. We were able to persuade that right hon. Gentleman to go at six o'clock in the morning to see the conditions at Barton Bridge. There seems a clear indication that this great project, which is now under construction, is beyond all doubt to be proceeded with.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment the Lancashire County Council has not been authorised to spend one penny piece on that bridge?

Mr. Proctor: I am aware of the position, but I am also aware that the Lancashire County Council, with the very great courage which characterises that body, has spent a great deal of money in anticipation of getting it back. That, I think, is one of the hopeful features. Those who are in charge are going ahead enthusiastically.
Our object in raising this question this evening is to exercise our right to give expression to grievances of the communities we represent. We have no desire in any way to block this Bill and to stop the great advantages which it will bring to the City of Manchester. I should have thought it would have been better for those who have been so active on behalf of Manchester if they had said something to us instead of having so many meetings of their own on this question. I would have been pleased to co-operate with them and to explain what was happening.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I knew about that, but I did not want to refer to it. They had in mind the danger of privilege.

Mr. Proctor: We seek some indication from the Manchester Ship Canal people that they will make a real effort to meet

modern road transport needs. There has been a large number of meetings in the past. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) and I summoned a conference in Eccles not long ago. It was attended by representatives of the Trades Council of Swinton, the Trades Council of Eccles, trade unions in Trafford Park and of local councils around there. With the blessing of the Minister of Transport, we arranged a conference with the Manchester Ship Canal authorities precisely to consider this problem.
I am anxious that we shall not say or do anything this evening to cause them not to be as helpful and accommodating as we would hope. There is a difference of opinion as to which is the best method, but I express the hope that whatever we say will not effect their helpfulness, if helpfulness is what we can expect.
I am not only saying that we want the Manchester Ship Canal Company to be impressed in this matter. We want the Ministry of Transport to be impressed. We want the Ministry to be much more eager than it has been in the past to do what is necessary to deal not only with the high level bridges but with all the bridges at present in existence.
The legal position regarding this great canal is unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend has read some passages from legislation of the past, but it is clear to me that the Ship Canal Company has the law on its side. The only obligation upon the Company is to close the bridge for not more than ten minutes. It can be swung back for two minutes and opened again for ten minutes. The Company's powers are absolute. When those powers were obtained, the circumstances were entirely different. They should now be modernised.
I have made great efforts to get a number of the bridges improved and have taken up the matter with the Minister of Transport. In one letter from the Ministry, I was told:
Your question about the financial responsibility for structural improvements to the existing bridge is not one which can be answered directly. The fact is that nobody has any responsibility, so far as I know, for improving the bridge; it is owned by the Manchester Ship Canal Company, who are responsible for maintaining it but, as a matter of practical politics, I have little doubt that anyone who wanted it improved would have to secure the company's agreement and foot the bill.


That seems to me to be a rather unsatisfactory position concerning any improvement that would be necessary, and certainly a large number of improvements are needed on the Barton Bridge.
Thirty-five thousand workers pass over these bridges daily to and from the Trafford Park Estate works. There is grave inconvenience to the workers and great loss to manufacturers and others, as well as considerable inconvenience to people travelling that way. Consideration should be given to a change in responsibility and the problem should be looked at afresh with a desire to do something to improve matters.
I have stated that we are meeting the Manchester Ship Canal Company on 2nd March to deal with the problem. The representatives of the trade councils and town councils, and of the trade unions and employers at Trafford Park, will be present and I hope that something will be accomplished at this conference. If not, we shall have to consider what other avenues are open to us in appealing to the Ministry of Transport to face its responsibilities in this matter.
In a letter sent to me towards the end of last year, the Metropolitan-Vickers Company said:
You are no doubt aware of the difficulties which are arising in the transport departments of the various authorities owing to the shortage of operating staff—in this area—Manchester Corporation, Salford Corporation and the Lancashire United Transport Company; this shortage is causing serious delays in the transport of our personnel but, in the case of L.U.T. transport, is made far worse owing to the crossing of the Manchester Ship Canal by Barton Bridge. On one particular occasion recently—Friday, 19th August—passengers leaving here shortly after 5 p.m. did not reach their homes in the Swinton and Irlam areas until 6.45 p.m. This was due, to use a local term, to being 'bridged'"—
the English language is enriched by this bridge—
buses were late getting into the Park and getting out of it owing to the swinging of the Bridge. Between about 4.45 and 6.30 p.m. it was turned at least six times and traffic at the end of the queue had to wait until 6.30 before their turn came to cross the Bridge. These delays have been happening to a lesser degree almost daily.
This is from another firm:
The situation is serious and there is every possibility of labour troubles in Trafford Park as a direct protest against the worsening position. It has been suggested that the canal should be lighted at night to permit the passage of vessels during the hours of darkness

and by doing so ease the traffic usage of the waterways and thereby enable the Manchester Ship Canal Company to give some consideration to allowing the bridge to remain open to road traffic during peak daylight hours.
That suggestion has not been turned down out of hand, so I am hoping that there is a serious possibility of lagging the canal at night and thus lessening the traffic pressure during the day and especially during the peak hours.
There is another Motion on the Notice Paper which I understand is not to be called. It mentions certain times at which Barton Road Bridge should not be closed to road traffic. Its terms are not satisfactory to me or to the Trafford Park workers. My name appears as a supporter of that Motion, but I did not know anything about it until after it was in print.
I want to make it clear that at the present time the canal company has given us an undertaking that it will make efforts to open the bridge to the road from 5.45 a.m. to 6 a.m.—

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. It is true that my hon. Friend saw only a copy of that Motion, which deals with the question he has raised. I said that I would explain it in my speech. However, he did see the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: In any case, the proposal in that Instruction is out of order. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and it could not be called, and, therefore, I hope, since it is out of order, that in discussing this topic hon. Members will not go too precisely into times, because that would be to bring in by a side wind what is out of order.

Mr. Proctor: I was dealing only with what is already in existence. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) not referred specifically to it in his speech, I should not have mentioned it now. I was speaking of what is in existence now as a promise from the canal company.
The company proposes to keep the bridge open to road traffic from 5.45 to 6.0 a.m.; 6.55 to 7.20; 7.35 to 7.50; 8.05 to 8.17; 4.35 p.m. to 4.55; 5.15 to 5.50; 9.35 to 9.55; 10.10 to 10.30. If the company could give us a firm guarantee to give us those times the position would be more satisfactory than it is. However, we should like to be precise about it.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: The times the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned relate to barges, surely. There must be some openings to allow ocean-going vessels, which cannot be delayed, to pass.

Mr. Proctor: The times to which I am referring were in an undertaking given by the Manchester Ship Canal Company about opening the bridge to road traffic. That has nothing at all to do with the canal traffic. I am sorry if I did not make myself perfectly clear. But so far the Company has not succeeded in keeping to these times. I am hopeful that, as a result of this debate, ventilation of the problem will ensure that everybody connected with the matter will make a 100 per cent. effort to improve the situation and do somethng about the tremendous build-up of traffic at Barton Bridge.

Mr. Eric Johnson: May I clear up a point about the undertaking given by the Company? Surely, the Company has never at any time given any undertaking to keep the road at Barton Bridge open to traffic when ocean-going ships have to go through.

Mr. Proctor: This is what the Ministry of Transport said:
In July, 1951, the Manchester Ship Canal Company agreed that the bridge should remain open to road traffic for the following periods:…
And then the Ministry gave the periods which I have just quoted. The undertaking is perfectly clear but the Company has not been able to carry it out, otherwise we should not have the present chaos.

Mr. W. Griffiths: This is a most interesting point. The Manchester Ship Canal Company claims that under the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1885, it is obliged to open bridges to transport along the canal and exclude road traffic at any time that ocean-going vessels are passing down the canal. That is in conflict with what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Proctor: The Company is not obliged under the 1885 Act. It is only empowered to do it, and that is a quite different matter. The Company is in supreme control of the traffic on the canal and on the road and, except for the fact that an obligation rests upon it not to

close the bridge to road traffic for more than ten minutes, it can do exactly what it likes under existing legislation. I say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that this is an unsatisfactory position in modern times. It should be changed. The Minister of Transport should be responsible for seeing that the road traffic and the canal traffic have fair play.
The Ministry, as an impartial body, should be controlling the opening and closing of the bridges. This is now left entirely to the Manchester Ship Canal Company which has a financial interest in getting the ships along the canal and has no financial interest in getting workers and road traffic over the bridges. My understanding of modern life is that where the financial interest is as strong as that the tendency is to favour that interest.
I ask that for this great waterway which is now an absolute block to road traffic in a dozen places, the Minister of Transport should take full responsibility and if necessary bring legislation before the House to ensure fair play for the community for which we speak and which has been so often treated hardly in delay, frustration, difficulties and loss of trade. If we have some satisfactory indications from the other side of the House that the matter will be considered, we on our part will consider further what we shall do.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I intervene briefly in the debate because I feel that it is not truly the intention of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Eccles (Mr. Proctor) to deny to Manchester the great facilities which exist in this Bill. May I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that by the sentiments he expressed at the beginning of his sincere and excellent speech he showed clearly his deep love for the area in which he grew up?
May I say to the hon. Member for Eccles that in succeeding me in representing that distinguished and charming constituency in 1945, he showed then, by the affection of the electors, that he would think beyond the frontiers of the small Borough of Eccles, and that enshrined in the City of Manchester, based on a true co-operation between all its people, lie the real interests in the development of the city along the lines


indicated in the Bill now before the House?
The provision of this great oil dock is of such benefit to the City of Manchester as our third largest port, as it is to the canal itself and to all those who extract their livelihood from the work around that canal or in Trafford Park, that truly it would be a wrong action on the part of the House tonight to deny the Bill a Second Reading.
I have a number of interests in this matter, and I do not want to speak exclusively for the City of Manchester. As many hon. Members know, I had the privilege of representing Eccles from 1935 to 1945, and now I represent the Withington division of Manchester. For ten years Barton Bridge was my own constituency problem, and I spent much the same kind of existence as the present hon. Member for Eccles in attending one discussion after another at Eccles Town Hall, pleading with the local regional office of the Ministry of Transport to take some forward step about the opening and closing of Barton Bridge.
The traffic pressure was not so great in those immediate pre-war years, and the working of the canal through the war years was done by convoy system. Therefore the locality was not quite aware of the enormous impact which might come to it in the post-war years, first, by the expansion of Trafford Park as an industrial estate, and, secondly, by the immense growth in road traffic. Let us remember that Barton Bridge is only a two-way bridge, and what that implies in traffic congestion is so dreadful that I need not elaborate the point.
My interest does not end in formerly representing Eccles in this House and now representing the City of Manchester. I must disclose another interest. I happen to be one of the senior directors of the Lancashire United Transport Company, which has to operate a vast fleet of double-deck vehicles over Barton Bridge into Trafford Park. I can assure you, Sir, that it represents both for the board of directors of that company and for its operating staff one of the permanent headaches of existence. It is not so much in terms of money—that is not quite assessable—but in terms of lost time and bad temper that it is now reaching monumental proportions.
Although, in the first instance, I shall be the friend of Manchester, I cannot be so callous in heart or mind that I cannot make some of the points already made in the two excellent speeches to which the House has just listened. I will read briefly the words of the general manager of the company for which I speak in a letter which he sent me the other day. He says:
The actual cost to the Company in terms of pounds, shillings and pence is practically impossible to ascertain, but my estimate would be, approximately, £1,500 per annum. This sum is brought about by overtime and by the necessity for having standby crews and vehicles. Although the financial cost is not great, the cost in passenger goodwill is immeasurable. The passenger complaints are often very difficult to deal with.
And the bad temper, and sometimes bad language, between passengers and the operating staff of our company has to be listened to rather than printed.

Mr. Ede: Is that two-way also?

Sir R. Cary: I think it is, as anyone who knows the problem will appreciate.
It has seemed at times that this is an almost insoluble problem, but I believe that if the Bill is given a Second Reading there can be discussions in Committee which may improve the arrangements for the opening and closing of the bridge. It is not upon the lighter vessels, barges, etc., that the quarrel is centred. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South rightly pointed out, it is centred upon the ocean-going vessels, the 10,000 ton ships, which are most important to the life and welfare of the City of Manchester. Those vessels are, in turn, governed by tides and by pilots, and the directors of the Canal Company are not themselves free to give the kind of undertakings sought by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. There are conflicting interests, but I believe that, with continuous collaboration, it might be possible to obtain a compromise which would improve conditions, apart from the difficulties referred to in the remarks of the general manager of the Lancashire United Transport Company which I have quoted.
Do not let us be misled about the building of the great high-level bridge. Many workers travelling to Trafford Park come from Bolton, Farnworth and districts far removed from the sides of the canal, and many of our double-decker buses will


unload on the other side and the workers will go via the high-level bridge, with its long gentle ramp, into Trafford Park. Many workers living in Monton, Irlam and Cadishead will, however, still use the ordinary roads leading to the present bridge approaches. The high-level bridge will partly answer the problem, but will not fully answer it.
I would utter a word of warning to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the high-level bridge. The Lancashire United Transport Company operates over most of the central area of Lancashire, and in the establishment of depots it is often concerned with the problem of mining subsidence, which has led it in recent months to scrap three potential depot sites. I have not seen the plans for the new high-level Barton Bridge, but in view of the weight of the approach ramps, running back a mile and a half and sometimes two miles, leading to the clover leaf roadway pattern, I wonder whether there will be fracture problems and additional costs which the Ministry of Transport ought seriously to investigate. It may be all very well to promise that the bridge will be completed in three or six years' time, but I do not think that enough technical work has been done in relation to the construction of the high-level bridge.

Mr. J. T. Price: Might I refer to the serious point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman about the plans developed by the Lancashire County Council for erecting ramps leading to the high-level bridge? On present indications, that work is expected to be completed in six or seven years' time. I understand from the county surveyor—this ought to be on record—that a survey has been carried out which does not disclose any risk of mining subsidence in the area chosen as the site for the bridge. I believe I am right in saying that there are no coal workings at all in the district.

Sir R. Cary: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and it is a comfort to hear that, but in a matter of speculation and conjecture such as the creation of a great public facility like a new bridge, one hears information from many quarters. Because of our experience in the establishment of sites for garages, which because of their concrete floors do have to take a considerable load, we have been somewhat disturbed about that area on account of mining subsidence.
All I ask is that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and Eccles, who moved and seconded the Amendment in such eloquent terms, might think, on reflection, that the interests of the City of Manchester are also theirs, and that the matters enshrined in this Bill ought now to take some degree of priority in the discussions in this House.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) as the mover, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) as the seconder, of this Motion, which focuses attention on a problem which has existed for some time and still exists, and which causes a great deal of anxiety to people passing from the north to the south at that point between Eccles and Urmston.
I know this problem well, because I used to live a short distance away from Barton Bridge. I must confess that I was full of curses when I found the bridge closed when I had a particular engagement to keep at a particular time, and yet was at the back of a long queue of motor vehicles. What was my experience has, no doubt, also been the experience of many people. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends who have submitted this Amendment have rendered a public service, and no words of mine should minimise or in any way detract from the strength of the case which they have put.
I submit that, however valid are the terms of the Amendment and however necessary it is for this problem to be tackled vigorously, there is no reason why this Bill should not receive a Second Reading. There is nothing in this Bill which relates to the Amendment which has been tabled by way of objection to it. This Bill proposes to empower the company to construct a new oil dock at Stanlow for use by the oil industry, and to ease the fuel position, and also to borrow further money—I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is listening—for the construction of works for improving the facilities in the Port of Manchester, which are matters of major importance, not only to that port, but also I submit, in the national interest, as being measures designed to prevent delays in shipping.
There is not a word in the Bill which says that we shall not have a high-level


bridge, and not a word which says that my hon. Friends are not perfectly right in all that they have been saying. The Ship Canal Company agrees about the trouble that is caused, and it is as much concerned and anxious to help members of the public using the Trafford Park Industrial Estate as are the hon. Members associated with the Amendment.
From time to time the Company has attended conferences where these grievances have been ventilated and there is to be a further conference on 2nd March. The Company will attend that conference and will be only too pleased to sit with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), the local authorities, the trades councils and all the other parties concerned to deal with the present problem. Is that any reason why these important matters, for which the Company requires immediate power in the national interest, should be delayed? After all, we want to do all we can to assist the workers to get to Trafford Park speedily and to get home speedily. Can anyone deny that the Company operates the canal in the national interest and not for fun?
The canal runs from the River Mersey, at Eastham, to Manchester, a distance of 36 miles. Since 1894 ships have been going back and forth bringing imports and taking exports, particularly from the heart of Manchester which is at the centre of the world's largest population area, a distance of 20 miles round. The Company is not lightly introducing the Bill. It is introducing it because it is absolutely vital. Last year, approximately 18½ million tons of cargo was discharged through the port, probably a greater tonnage than for any other port in the United Kingdom, except London and Liverpool.
The Bill is, therefore, of the greatest possible consequence, not only to Manchester and the workers who depend upon these ships and the oil and shipping industry in the City of Manchester and its environs, but the country needs the Bill to enable the Ship Canal Company to achieve these objectives. At all times the Company has been conciliatory and helpful and it has not been its fault that the high-level bridge has not been built. The high-level bridge was approved in 1952 and a start is now being made which

will largely relieve the grievances which have been aired tonight.
At the same time, the Company has provided for hours of closure which it feels will meet the situation. I speak in the name of the Company which, while a public Company, is one in which the City of Manchester holds the majority of shares. The Company is not one purely for private profit, but one in which a great municipality holds the majority of shares and the Bill has the greatest importance from that point of view.

Mr. Proctor: Does Manchester City Council exercise the control to which its financial holding entitles it, or is it like the British Government with their holdings in the Suez Canal?

Mr. Lever: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Manchester Corporation holds the majority of shares. It may also be some satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles to know that the Manchester City Council now has a Labour majority. I am sure that it will not be indifferent to the representations which my hon. Friends have made on behalf of the workers in those areas.

Mr. J. T. Price: I think that my hon. Friend still has not got the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). The point is, do the public representatives sitting on the board of directors of the Canal Company make their presence felt effectively by voicing the sort of grievances which have been expressed tonight? In other words, are those directors—the aldermen who are paid directors of the Canal Company—more active in that capacity than are the directors representing the British Government on the Board of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

Mr. Lever: I can assure my hon. Friend that those directors who are members of the Manchester Corporation are very anxious that the problems raised by my hon. Friends shall be solved at the earliest possible moment. There are enough Labour members among the directors of the Canal Company to exercise their influence with a view to easing the situation which has very properly been mentioned tonight by my hon. Friends. I hope that the House will realise that the Canal Company is not responsible in any way


for the delay in building the high-level bridge.
The Bill is required most urgently by the Company, and I am sure that the House will support it. At the same time, we are all anxious to help my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, together with those who have appended their signatures to the Amendment. They have quite rightly focussed attention upon the problem which now exists, and which ought to be solved, but because it ought to be solved, it does not mean that we have to say to the Canal Company, "You cannot get on with the business of expanding our country's economy by enabling more trade to go backwards and forwards." One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Because of that, I appeal to the good sense of my hon. Friends to recognise the urgency of this matter for Manchester, and also for their own constituents. I hope that they will agree to the Second Reading.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. S. Storey: As the representative of the constituency in which Trafford Park is situated, I know full well the consequences to the trade and industry of Trafford Park—and especially to the workers—of the closing of the swing bridge at peak hours. For that reason I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), who moved and seconded the Amendment. I might have been tempted to support them if it were not for the fact that I feel that the Amendment is ill-timed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) was quite right when he said that no one who has the interest of this district at heart wishes to deny the powers which the Canal Company is asking for. When, however, the Company is asking for an extension of its powers it cannot complain if Parliament inquires whether it is using its existing powers in a reasonable manner. No one disputes that as regards these bridges over the canal the Company complies with its statutory obligations, but that is not to say that it does so in a manner which is reasonable in the light of present circumstances.
The statutory obligations were imposed at a time when Trafford Park, as a trading estate, was either in its infancy or did not exist—that it did not exist is, I think, the correct position. Those statutory obligations were intended to deal with the traffic then existing. We are, therefore, entitled, before granting the Company further powers, to ask that it shall fulfil, not only its statutory obligations, but as far as it can, exercise its present powers in the way best calculated to help to deal with the appalling problems to which the closing of the bridge gives rise.
One of the last acts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance before he left the Ministry of Transport—and here I should like to acknowledge all the good work which he did to help us to expedite work on the new Barton Bridge—was to write to the Manchester Ship Canal Company to ask if it would confer with the local authorities to see whether it was possible to amend the times of opening of the bridge so as to ease the traffic problem. For a variety of reasons it has not been possible to arrange for that meeting to take place before 2nd March, but I hope the outcome of it will be to make it possible for the Company to improve conditions, and for the situation to be mitigated until the new Barton Bridge is built.
For that reason I feel that the Amendment is ill-timed, and I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded it will agree to withdraw it. If, in the meantime, the Company has not shown its willingness to help, or proved to the local authorities that it can do no more to help. I should like to place on record that we reserve the right to oppose the Bill in its later stages.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) began and ended his speech by suggesting that this Amendment is ill-timed. I think that everything that he said in between pointed to the fact that it was not ill-timed at all, but that this was just the right moment to raise this question. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) in a ten-minute speech which we enjoyed tremendously, spoke of all the difficulties that he had experienced when he was Member of Parliament for Eccles, and had apparently


come to the conclusion that because he is now one of the Members of Parliament for Manchester he must take the other line in spite of his own arguments.
I think that the two powerful speakers who initiated this debate really got down to the root of things. We have no difficulty in expressing our views on this problem. Everybody who lives and works in this area knows of the difficulties which exist. When we consider the conditions which existed in 1885 and compare them with our traffic difficulties in 1956 we surely have the right, even at the risk of being accused of ill-timed agitation, once more to bring to the notice of the Manchester Ship Canal Company—and now to the notice of the House of Commons—the great problems that exist. Therefore, I do not think that there is any ill-timing at all. As has been stated already, this has been going on for thirty or forty years. Year by year the situation gets worse.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) that those of us whose names are attached to this Amendment have no objection to the rest of the Bill at all. We think the Bill is a good Bill.

Mr. Boardman: When my hon. Friend says that there is no objection to the rest of the Bill, does he not mean that there is no objection to the Bill at all, because this Amendment has nothing to do with the Bill?

Mr. Royle: I always accept the superior knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman). It is correct that we are at the moment rejecting the whole Bill because we want to emphasise the necessity for bringing these other things about.
We realise the difficulties of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and we appreciate what the Company means to the City of Manchester, but let hon. Members remember that only a few yards of the Manchester Ship Canal are actually in Manchester. Most of the Manchester Ship Canal is in other constituencies, including Stretford, Salford, and so on. In spite of that, we appreciate what it means to Manchester, and what it means to Manchester it means equally to Salford.
We feel, however, that the traffic problem must be considered, and for that

reason I feel that the Company, in its statement, exaggerates its difficulties. It seems to me that all this talk about ocean-going vessels is something that the wit of man, and certainly the wit of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, should be able to get over.
I want to talk not about Barton Bridge but about Trafford Road Bridge, which is the connecting link between the City of Salford and Trafford Park. Every morning, every lunch hour and every evening thousands of my constituents have to pour over Trafford Road Bridge to their work. There are no oceangoing vessels going under that bridge at those times. In its statement the Company refers to coastal vessels which go to Pomona Dock. Those vessels do not rely on the tides in the way that the ocean-going vessels do. The Company has not to be concerned with the possibility of stopping that shipping somewhere along the fairway of the canal. Yet there is almost as great a problem at the Trafford Road Bridge as there is at Barton Bridge, and hundreds of my constituents are constantly held up on their way to work and on their way home—not only those who are walking and cycling but the bus services from Salford down to the Trafford Park industrial area.
My appeal tonight to the directors and management of the Manchester Ship Canal Company is that while they are considering this great problem of Barton Bridge which might be more difficult of solution, they could easily do something about Trafford Road Bridge. It would be no sacrifice to them to hold their ships from passing through Trafford Bridge during those very busy times.
While I know that it would be out of order to discuss the other Amendments on the Order Paper, let me say that the times that are stated are very fair. In fact, in my view, they are too fair and should be extended. Whatever the result of this debate, I hope we can successfully plead that more consideration should be given to the Trafford Road Bridge and that the local authorities, the trade unions and the employers involved should make sure that the Trafford Road Bridge problem is solved. That is my appeal tonight.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for having taken this opportunity to ventilate what is a very serious problem for the thousands of people who work in Trafford Park and have to cross either Barton Bridge or Trafford Bridge to get home, but I am bound to say that it seems to me very much like throwing out the baby with the bath water to refuse to give a Second Reading to the Bill for the reasons set down in the Amendment.
I say that for two reasons. First, it seems to me that the solution of the traffic problem on these bridges is more for the highway authorities and the Ministry of Transport than for the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Secondly, as has been said by the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill which we are asked to reject.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and others have referred to the 1885 Act and to the obligations of the Ship Canal Company under that Act. They have said fairly that the company has stuck to the letter of the law but that conditions have changed very much since that Act was passed 71 years ago.
I should like to point out that if it is true, as I know it is, that far more people want to cross these bridges in 1956 than wanted to cross them in 1885, equally, far more ships and far larger ships want to go up the canal. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) referred to the possibility of unrest in Trafford Park on account of the natural irritation caused by the appalling delays. Many of those who live near Manchester and have occasion to cross those bridges know how true that is.
Although there may be great irritation on those grounds, I ask the hon. Member also to bear in mind that if ships are delayed in their passage up the Canal that may well mean disruption of the smooth operation of the factories in Trafford Park. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) said that Manchester had a very small part of the Ship Canal, but I would point out that if there had been no Manchester there would not have been a Ship Canal; and if there had been no Ship Canal I do not think there would have been a Trafford Park

Industrial Estate, so that it cuts both ways.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent and others referred to the arrangements made for closing the bridges at certain times and to the point about oceangoing vessels. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, West is no longer in his place—

Mr. Ellis Smith: He is not well and has to be careful of his health.

Mr. Johnson: I was merely going to say, in connection with his remarks on Trafford Bridge, that the bridge lies east of the main dock and west of the smaller dock called the Pomona dock. He referred to the fact that these were largely used for coastal vessels. It is true that in the case of the Trafford Bridge it is closed to all vessels at certain specified times. I have a list of them, but I expect that all hon. Members interested know those times as well as I do. The Ship Canal Company might well look into this and consider whether it cannot extend the time. I think the period is only half-an-hour in the morning, which seems a little short; and the Company might be able to do more in that direction. The question of Barton Bridge is, of course, entirely different. That lies west of the docks and ocean-going vessels, about which so much has been said, have to pass through it.
I do not pretend to have any practical knowledge of the problems of shipping or navigation. I would not presume to express my personal opinions on the subject of ocean-going vessels, although I am bound to say that what the Ship Canal Company has held to be the case seems to be common sense. There are enormous difficulties in applying limitations which are applied in the case of smaller vessels to ships running up to 10,000 tons. I understand that it is simply not practicable in view of the conditions of tides, wind and weather to stop an ocean-going vessel on its passage down the canal. Once one of those large vessels has lost headway it is out of control and presents a positive danger to anything else in the Canal.

Mr. Ellis Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South shakes his head, but I said that I had no personal knowledge of these matters, although it seems


a question of common sense. It also seems true that ocean-going vessels have to sail according to the tides rather than the convenience of road traffic. If they miss a tide it may mean a day's delay in arriving at their destinations. It is equally serious if they are delayed coming towards Manchester because the whole port might be tied up through delays. There may be ways round that and I am sure the Canal Company would do all it could, but the difficulties seem almost insuperable. The Company holds the view that it has done all it can to help road users.
That is a view not shared by all hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and others think the Company could have done a great deal more. That may be so, but whatever might be achieved by the canal company keeping the bridges open for longer periods would not solve the problem by any manner or means.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South or my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) about the high-level bridge. It seems to me that the only real solution of the problem is the construction of a high-level bridge. That has been recognised for a long time by the highways authorities and everyone. They have been planning for 20 years to build such a bridge. The Ship Canal Company concluded an agreement in 1952 with Lancashire County Council about the southern approach to the bridge. I have seen the plans and, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) told us, they seem to be good and not to involve danger from mining subsidence. The bridge has been approved by the Ministry of Transport and it is in the 1956–59 road plan. It will cost a great deal of money, but I am certain it will be money very well spent.
Apart from any commercial consideration, it is quite impossible to estimate the loss in time to workers who have to cross Barton Bridge or Trafford Bridge during the rush hour. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Withington pointed out, it is not only a question of time, but it must be very annoying indeed—to put it mildly—to have to get up extra early go to work, and then find one is delayed at the bridge. I cannot believe that one

would be in the best of tempers at work and give of one's best, particularly with the thought of the journey home in mind. Many of us have experienced these delays. I have, and I have experienced them when sitting comfortable and warm in a motor car. That made me fairly irritable, but I do not know what I should feel like it I were to experience that same delay standing, for example, beside a bicycle on a wet night after I had done a hard day's work.
While there is a great deal to be said for the point of view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I do not think that the remedy lies with the Ship Canal Company. We should be ill-advised to reject on those grounds an admirable and most useful Bill, important not only to Manchester but to the whole country. The Company has done everything possible to facilitate the building of a high-level bridge. I have referred to the fact that it has agreed about the southern approach. It has, I understand, abandoned its powers to build a railway so as to facilitate that approach.
It is also worth bearing in mind that 20 per cent. of the traffic going into the Port of Manchester is for Trafford Park. We have to balance the inconvenience of the one against the other and make up our minds which is the greater. Various hon. Members have spoken of the importance of the oil dock, which is perhaps the main item in the Bill, and the provisions to finance it and to make improvements in the Port of Manchester.
The Port of Manchester, as most hon. Members no doubt know, is one of the leading ports in the country. Last year, I think, it was the third largest, about 18½ million tons of goods being shipped into it. The Ship Canal Company wants to raise the figure even higher. While I welcome the action of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I very much hope he will see fit to withdraw his Motion and not impede the passage of a useful Bill, especially as he has now further ventilated a problem which has been very widely known.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: It may well be asked, what right has a Member representing a Yorkshire constituency to speak on the question of the Manchester Ship Canal? I happen to be the one Member of the House who, for forty


seven years, has lived nearer to the canal than any other person in it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In the canal?

Mr. Jones: I can throw a stone from my allotment into the canal, so that is near enough. It is often as near as I wish to get to it.
No one in the House wants to impede progress, but what this House has a right to do, and what we on this side of the House, representing industrial workers, have the right to do, is to point out to all promoters of Bills ways in which we think Bills can be improved and in which, as a result of the passing of Bills, the public interest can be protected. The Manchester Ship Canal Company is a concern which can well look after itself. It is an affluent concern, with a lot of effluent coming from it.

Mr. L. M. Lever: And down it.

Mr. Jones: I am not dwelling on that aspect at the moment.
I have to declare something of a vested interest. As hon. Members know, I happen to work for an organisation on the canal which employs 5,000 people. We load our ore there. Ocean-going vessels bring in the iron ore without which we could not make our record tonnages, the record tonnage having been made last week.
Barton Bridge has been a vexed question for a long time. It is impossible to compute the loss of production which has been caused, the aggravation to, or the psychological effect upon, workers coming to and from the Trafford Park area. But what about the more remote parts? There is sitting in the Gallery a very worthy manager of one of the finest departments of the country's steel works. Only a few days ago, he complained bitterly to me about not being able to get to and from his place of work. Managers have to deal with absenteeism. They have to deal with men who come late to work. How can men in executive positions deal with men who come late to work when they themselves are being held up through no fault of their own? This is not an isolated instance, but one of thousands of such instances which arise from the lack of proper facilities in the area.
Nobody wants to impede the Ship Canal improvement. Goodness knows, it

is needed. Much has been said about Barton Bridge and about Trafford Park Bridge, but nothing at all has been said about the high-level bridge at Hollins Green. At Hollins Green Bridge is a good roadway which could carry much traffic and relieve congestion at Barton Bridge, too. Why does it not go over Hollins Green Bridge? Because there is a prehistoric toll working there. I use it very often when I get an opportunity to do a little fishing—not in the canal: no self-respecting fish would want to go near it—but elsewhere, even other canals, and on my way, at weekends, for instance, I go over the high-level bridge there. It costs me a shilling every time I go that way because of that Noah's Ark arrangement, which ought to be terminated.
Industrial as well as private vehicular traffic could use that bridge and lessen the congestion at Barton Bridge at the same time, and the bridge would be used if the toll were not operating. The Ship Canal Company has a responsibility to terminate it.

Mr. J. T. Price: I know that my hon. Friend wants to be fair, and I know he is a great authority on the Ship Canal, so perhaps he will allow me to point out that the reason why the high-level bridge at Hollins Green is not used to any large extent by heavy traffic is that the network of secondary roads on the Cheshire side could not take heavy vehicular traffic.

Mr. Jones: That may be, but the bridge is built to take five-ton loads. There is a notice which says so, and it can. I have gone over with fairly heavy loads of material in recent months, testing it. If that toll were ended much of the congestion at Barton Bridge could be removed.
Much has been said about the efficiency of the canal. I happen to live at Irlam, on the canal. There is only one cottage between my front door and Irlam locks. For the people wanting to cross north and south there is the facility of a ferry. Noah's Ark is a long way back in time from now, but even Noah would not have used that method of getting from one side of a waterway to the other. We have the 1855 Act—

Mr. L. M. Lever: Eighteen eighty-five.

Mr. Jones: Yes, of course. But we have 1855 facilities or older—a rowboat with one oar. If it snaps, you have "had it." How long it takes to get from one


side to the other! I think the ferry must have been used by the originator of the song of the Volga boatmen—not the vulgar boatmen. The boat is still there. The ferry cannot possibly carry heavy traffic. I do not suppose it has carried cattle or vehicular traffic or any transport for the last fifteen or twenty years. It is prehistoric. It takes four men to wind the winch. There it is, not a hundred yards away from the great modern works of Petrochemicals, Ltd., and the great modern works of the Lancashire Steel Corporation. There it is in this atomic age, and we have a boatman to carry us from one side of the canal to the other. So much for the—so-called—progressive Ship Canal Company.
I go fishing in other canals. I know of one where there is a boat with a small outboard motor, and it takes thirty or forty men as quick as you please from one side to the other. Then there is Bob's Ferry as it is called; not that it costs a bob; it costs a penny. It is a little further up the road. It works only when the wind is not blowing, if the weather is suitable. What happens if there is a heavy wind? The men coming from the works of Petrochemicals, Ltd., try to get across on a narrow board. It is all too easy to slip off and fall in the water. Do they drown? No, they are asphyxiated; they have "had it".
That is the sort of thing which needs the attention of the Manchester Ship Canal. It is all very well to talk about high-level bridges, modern transport and the rest. Great improvements could be made with the company's existing facilities. I am not saying this in any spirit of unfair criticism because the Urban District Council of Irlam has raised this matter with the Company time and time again, yet nothing has been done. It is a scandal that in this age a company of that type, with all its great engineering facilities and business acumen, should allow such a system to remain. All the things I have described are there to be seen—the boatmen, the one boat, the penny-in-the-slot arrangement, the toll, the shilling, and so on. They should all be swept into oblivion.
Now I want to deal with the question of industrial discontent. How is it possible for managements to talk to trade union people about extra production when

the men concerned are discontented, frustrated, fed up? In my industry men work hard, they sweat, they get wet through. Yet they have to stand in buses in bitter weather like that which we are having today. It is not fair. It is not British. We should stop talking so much about the progress that is made when such conditions as these are still with us.
I could go on for a long time, but I will not do so because I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading. The primary reason for putting down this Amendment was to give us an opportunity to voice our opinions so that the new Minister can get at the facts.
I have to declare an interest in the high-level bridge. There are available between 2 million and 3 million tons of the finest hard core in the country, good slack, out of which roads can be made. We want to get rid of it, but I understand that the Lancashire County Council has not had permission to spend a penny on the necessary purchase. I know that tipping has taken place on a voluntary basis, but when anything is free it is not generally the right stuff.
We want to help the Minister. We are not politicians in the sense of theory and Bills and Amendments. We are practical, hard-headed chaps who look at these problems in a practical way. The high-level bridge will help considerably. It will take traffic from Cadishead and Irlam in one direction and avoid it going to Barton. The sooner we get this bridge the better, because these transport problems are having a tremendous effect upon the costs of production. The Minister should not make any mistake about that. A lot of nonsense is talked about the ships that cannot lose headway. They stop easily enough every time they come past my front door. They make no headway or, if they do, they burst the gates wide open. The idea that they cannot go into lay-bys is silly. During the war we had to decide to do something about D-day, and millions of logs were lashed together. If that could be done then it can be done in the Manchester Ship Canal now.
A final word to those representing the Manchester City Council. Let them come to tea to my house next Sunday and see the things I have been describing. Then perhaps we shall get something done.

10.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) will appreciate that I intend no offence to him when I say that we were very glad to hear that when he goes fishing he just comes within the weight limits when going over the bridge at Hollins Green.
I do not know the locality that we are discussing, but I have sympathy with the mover and seconder of the Amendment. I live not far from Bristol, where we suffer similar delays from swingbridges in the Bristol Docks. However, I wish to oppose the Amendment, on behalf of shipping.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said he knows that ships have no difficulty in losing headway and stopping. That is true if it is done in the right and proper place, within a lock where there are buoys, dolphins and bollards to which one can secure, but in the main portions of the canal where these appliances are not available it is not only dangerous but disastrous to stop a ship.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He is making a reasonable case, even if it is of a critical nature, and we welcome it. I assure him we are not asking for anything like that. All we are asking is that this should be controlled in the locks, docks and wharves.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: It is not so easy. Tides do not run to a 12-hour clock. It is not like clocking in and out of a factory. Tides run according to the moon. Each day high water is at a different time. These things cannot be controlled on the basis of a timetable. The large vessels—some are ocean-going cargo carriers of more than 10,000 tons—rely on the tides to enter the Mersey and the canal, and they have also to rely on the tides to get out again, ensuring that there is sufficient water for them to negotiate the shallower parts of the river.
It may be possible to find suitable places at a swingbridge where a ship of that size can secure alongside or where it can be secured by putting lines to either bank, but delay of even a few minutes there may make the vessel miss the tide at Liverpool. The result may be that as much as twelve hours are lost. There may be disadvantage, not only to the vessel itself in relation to its handling, but

to other shipping if congestion is created which results in delays, and that may be felt very severely in Manchester Docks. If ships miss a tide, rather than go down the canal and berth in the Mersey, Liverpool or one of the other neighbouring places, they may remain in Manchester, which will be more convenient and more comfortable for them. That will result in congestion of berths which ought to be free for other vessels to enter and unload.
There is not only the difficulty of delay and congestion. Time costs money. In the case of a vessel of 10,000 tons or thereabouts the cost runs into several hundreds of pounds per hour in wages, fuel and maintenance, taking into account the ship's capital cost and its likely earning lifetime at sea. All that has to be taken into account.
It is simple to apply the brakes and stop a double decker bus or lorry or for a cyclist to put his foot down and prop his machine against the kerb, but as soon as one stops an ocean-going vessel one is wasting an asset which ought to be earning money. Any delay of that nature adds to the costs of our imports and exports.

Mr. Proctor: Is not that equally true of delay on the roads? If one delays a thousand vehicles, one is delaying a thousand men. One aspect must be balanced against the other. It is not a single problem but a double problem.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I agree with what the hon. Member says, but in trying to remove one difficulty the mover and seconder of the Amendment are confronting the locality and the industry within it with another difficulty. That is an equally big, if not bigger difficulty, taking into account the thousands of dockers who are affected if ships are delayed in this manner, the loss of working days and the loss of cargoes which must reach their destinations on time. Those effects add up to something very much more important than the delay of a few minutes likely to be caused by the swinging of a bridge.
After all, a 10,000-ton vessel is about 600 feet long. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that she moves up the canal at three or four knots. At three knots she will take two minutes to pass any point on the bank from stem to stern. If she is travelling at four knots, the


time will be one and a half minutes. Let us also suppose that it takes three minutes to open the swing bridge and three to shut it—I doubt whether it takes so long—then the total time is roughly eight minutes. If an extra minute at either end is allowed, that makes ten minutes for one vessel to pass. If the delays are longer than that, and I take the word of hon. Members that they are, then something must be wrong. But ten minutes should be ample time for a vessel to pass. In view of the delays it would involve to the great industry of the Port of Manchester, the third largest in England, I oppose the Amendment on behalf of the shipping industry.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Reference has been made to the loss of time and to the bad temper caused by the closing of these bridges. It is that added to the existing shortage of land in the area that makes the situation intolerable. At Metropolitan Vickers, work starts at 7.30 a.m., but to get there on time, thousands of workers have to get up at 5.30 a.m. The 7.30 a.m. buzzer at Metropolitan Vickers can be heard within a three-mile radius. One million people hear it every morning, many while still in bed. It serves as an alarm clock to thousands. I believe that those who get up at 5.30 a.m. deserve a wage, even before they get to work.
In those circumstances, one can imagine how keenly and bitterly it is felt that on top of all the natural difficulties there are unreasonable difficulties. Many of my hon. Friends have worked in jobs where one has to "clock on" in the mornings, and they have had the experience of being "quarter-houred" or "half-houred." That is not a pleasant experience. When it happens through no fault of one's own, it becomes even more objectionable.
Let us suppose that hon. Members had to "clock on" at 2.30 p.m. I do not know how such a proposal would be received. Let us suppose that for being late in arriving, part of their annual income was stopped and that they were late, not through any fault of their own, but because Westminster Bridge or Lambeth Bridge was closed for fifteen or twenty minutes. Hon. Members would then feel as strongly as do the people in the area to which we are referring.
By now the House should know how strong are the feelings of the people of South-East Lancashire, particularly in Salford, part of which I represent. Trafford Road, which connects with Trafford Bridge, is one of the main thoroughfares in Salford. It carries an exceedingly heavy traffic of passenger buses and lorries, and this traffic is growing. It is not only the people of Salford who are concerned; the people on the other side of Trafford Bridge are also affected, because Salford is connected, through Trafford Bridge, with the Broad-heath industrial area—Altrincham, Sale, Stretford, Moss Side, and the whole of southern and western Manchester.
It is quite wrong that, day after day, both on their inward and outward journeys, the workers of that area should be forced to suffer in this way. Constant references have been made in this House to the loss of production caused by industrial disputes, but I say, quite confidently, that far more time has been lost through the closing of these bridges than through industrial disputes.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to the importance of shipping, and other hon. Members have spoken of the importance of the Canal Company. I recognise the force of their arguments, but I believe that the Canal Company and shipping were made to serve the people, and not the people to serve the Canal Company. The people should come first. I submit that greater attention should be paid to the needs of the majority of people living in that area.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: In that respect I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. This is obviously a matter of balance. If one takes the argument to the other extreme one can quote examples of factories closing down in Manchester because they are so cluttered up with their own products, which should have been taken away via the canal or alternatively because the raw materials which they require are not coming in via the canal. This matter must be finely balanced. It cannot be argued too far one way or the other.

Mr. Allaun: We are eminently reasonable people, and we acknowledge the debt which the people in the area owe to the Canal Company, but we believe that it is quite possible for the Company to carry


out its work without interfering with the lives of the people in the way that it does at present.
To indicate the strength of feeling which exists on this subject I close by quoting a letter representing the views of tens of thousands of people in the area. It come from a recent issue of the Manchester Evening News, and reads as follows:
Twice on one day I have been held up by the closing of Trafford Bridge, at 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. With road traffic as it is today I feel that it is time that this Victorian relic should be permanently closed to water-borne traffic, except that which can pass underneath. The coasters could be diverted to the main docks and the sand barges, etc., adapted to pass under. Alternatively, the bridge could be opened for vessels between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. only.
(Sgd.) John P. Wilson.
I would point out to hon. Members that although in nine or ten years an alternative bridge will be built at Barton, there is no such proposal for an alternative bridge to the Trafford Bridge.
We are reasonable people, as I have already said, and are merely asking that there should be a reduction in the time during which these bridges are closed, and that local authorities and other organisations should be consulted as to the times when those bridges are closed.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), in the course of his interesting speech, mentioned the question of clocking-in. I think that he and probably other hon. Members will agree that the time looks as if it is approaching when we should clock out, so I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes.
Although I have not any direct responsibility for this Bill in the same sense that one would have for a Departmental Measure, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I say a word or two because my right hon. Friend certainly has an interest—in fact, he has a dual interest—in this matter.
I have listened with considerable sympathy to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have put very clearly the difficulties which arise from the problems of traffic going up and down the canal necessitating the bridges stopping the flow of people, particularly those

working in factories at different times of the day. I have listened most carefully, but I hope that those hon. Members will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that their arguments have no direct bearing on the objects of the Bill as such.
In fact, there have not been any criticisms—and I listened carefully for them—of the actual Bill. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) admitted that he and his hon. Friends had no objection to the Bill whatsoever. I think it would be a pity to block a non-controversial Measure of some considerable importance because other interests not directly connected with the objects of this Measure are felt to be not satisfactorily safeguarded.
Every important public utility undertaking must come to Parliament for new powers every so often. The last time that the Manchester Ship Canal Company asked for new powers was in 1952—four years ago—and the powers that are asked for in this Bill are purely enabling powers. I am not even saying that my right hon. Friend may or may not agree with all the powers they are asking for. That is a matter to be thrashed out later on. But these are powers for improving the efficiency of the port working—a matter which is obviously of first-rate importance not only to the economy of Manchester and the interests of those hon. Members who represent constituencies around there but, indeed, to the very nation itself.
Her Majesty's Government are, of course, very much in favour of public utility undertakings making their plans well in advance and obtaining the necessary Parliamentary powers for them so that they will be ready to take them up and carry on with these schemes as and when circumstances permit. I suggest that it would be wrong to say to this undertaking, "You shall not be given Parliamentary sanction to develop schemes in accordance with your statutory responsibilities unless you do so within prescribed limits; that is to say, we will not even give you a Second Reading to your Bill unless you agree here and now to carry out certain qualifications which we wish to lay down"—especially when there has been no suggestion that the Company has not carried out its obligations under the existing statutory provisions which safeguard the rights of road users.
However, as I have said, my right hon. Friend has a dual function in this case, in that he has oversight of the interests of both canal and road users. Of course, the perplexity of the case arises from the conflict of these two interests. Therefore, some sort of compromise must be arrived at. Both my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have shown considerable interest in this case. They have been most impressed by the serious inconvenience and hardship caused to the workers on the Trafford Estate by the closing of the bridge during morning and evening peak periods.
Last November, in connection with the representations made by the hon. Member for Eccles and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) for the extension of the restricted periods, they instructed that an approach should be made to the Company suggesting that it would not be unreasonable to ask that the present arrangements should be reviewed and that the Company should give sympathetic consideration to the representations which it was expected would be made by the local authorities.
Within the last few days the Company has been asked to meet representatives of the local authorities and Members of Parliament, and this the Company has agreed to do, thus showing its good faith. I stress that the Company has already gone a long way to meet the position of road users by restricting the passage of small vessels at peak periods. We must not forget that the first responsibility of the Company is to maintain the working of the port. It is impracticable to attempt to restrict the movement of ocean-going ships in a major port such as Manchester.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We do not accept that.

Mr. Profumo: I think it is impracticable to restrict their movement. May I go a little further—and perhaps the hon. Member may go this far with me.
To paraphrase what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), if ocean-going vessels could not pass freely up and down the Ship Canal, to and from the Manchester docks, the whole object of

the Canal would be defeated and the whole of the port of Manchester and the industries dependent on it, not least the oil and shipping industries, would be very seriously affected. Whether ocean-going traffic can or cannot be restricted, I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will at least go with me as far as saying that if it is restricted it will spoil one of the main objects of the Company and may lead to very serious difficulties.

Mr. Proctor: Surely the Company might have some effect if it made an effort to consider speeding up the work and avoiding peak times.

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Member will wait a moment I will come to that. What I said was that unless these vessels could pass freely up and down the canal serious conditions would arise. But, subject to this limitation concerning oceangoing vessels, the Company assures me—and I am authorised to say this—that it will enter the forthcoming meeting ready to see whether it is possible to revise the timing of the present restricted periods.
In addition, the Lancashire County Council has now made a scheme under the Special Roads Act, 1949, to construct a motor road as part of the Manchester Outer Ring Road. This includes a new high-level bridge at Barton which, in spite of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South thinks, is bound to relieve the congestion on the existing bridge to a certain extent. I think I detected some suspicion in the speeches of some hon. Members, and I should say that this scheme is in no way affected by anything my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day.
While I appreciate that this will take some years and will not offer an immediate solution, I feel that, because the Company is already doing more than it is statutorily obliged to do in regard to the opening of swing bridges, and because it is willing to discuss the matter further with those concerned—and has asked me to say so—it would be inappropriate to deny the Bill a Second Reading.
Perhaps the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and Eccles will now reconsider their proposal and withdraw their Amendment. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said in a speech which was both moving and entertaining, perhaps the main object of


hon. Members was to air this problem in the House. Perhaps we may regard them, in the words of another hon. Member, as being eminently reasonable and perhaps it is not too much to ask if they will withdraw the Amendment. Although I have no official standing in the matter, perhaps hon. Members will allow me to advise that the Bill be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Jack Jones: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that the local authorities concerned with the ferry question, and the high-level bridge, and the toll question, will be consulted by the Ship Canal Company?

Mr. Profumo: I could not give an undertaking regarding a local authority, but I am sure that the publicity of this debate will not remain within the four walls of this Chamber; I am certain that the local authorities will read with great care what has been said this evening, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will also be carefully examined in my own Department.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Anyone who knows the constitutional rights of this House knows that tonight we have only used our rights as hon. Members to voice a grievance of the people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, MERTHYR TYDVIL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I regret that circumstances have compelled me to keep the House for about another half an hour longer than it has already sat today, but I most sincerely feel that the reason for my getting up at this time is a very substantial one. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who is both young in age and in experience as Parliamentary Secretary, has had to come here, but he will, I am sure, understand why I am compelled to keep him, and the House, sitting a little longer.
On 7th February I asked the Minister of Labour, in a Question, what action he was taking to remedy the unemployment arising from the redundancy of more than 200 workers at works, the names of which have been supplied to him, in Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare. Later, by letter to the Minister, I asked whether this redundancy was in any way due to Government policy, but I am sorry to say that I have not even received an acknowledgment of my letter.
The answer to my Question was that the local employment exchanges were making every effort to place the redundant workers in other employment, that no great difficulties were anticipated at Aberdare, but that, at Merthyr Tydvil, prospects were much less bright. My own view is that today the prospects in my own constituency are rather grim. The Minister added that one firm had agreed to postpone discharges until 10th February. But this firm not only postponed the discharges, but also discharged, at practically the same time, another 200 of its workers, making the dismissals from that works total 400.
But this is not the only works in my constituency from which workers have recently been discharged. In one other works, 70 workers were discharged, and in yet another between 80 and 90. No assurances can be given by these or any of the other local employers that no further discharges will take place. In fact, the general feeling in the constituency, in the


light of the Government's policies which are so reminiscent of the inter-war years is that further unemployment is inevitable.
Naturally, my constituents are profoundly disturbed by these happenings. Their minds go back to those horrible and disastrous inter-war years when over 23,000 of the population of my small county borough were driven from the area because there was nothing to sustain them. Half a million of my countrymen in Wales suffered in the same way. No fewer than 12 collieries within and on the fringe of my constituency were closed, abandoned and ruined. The historic Dowlais iron and steel works was closed down and most of its plant was sold for scrap.
We had twelve to fourteen years of horrible mass unemployment in Merthyr and Dowlais, that is, most of the constituency which I try to represent in this House, and we cannot be expected to forget the effects of those years. During those years, some 1,800 collieries were closed and some half a million men and boys were driven from the mining industry. If such awful disasters could happen in those days to our basic industries of coal, iron and steel, what chance have we now?
Our new post-war industries are largely engaged in manufacturing consumer goods. They are subject to the disastrous policies of the Government, although I admit that these policies are couched in somewhat different language today. I repeat that unemployment in my constituency is the direct and, in some instances, the indirect consequence of Government action. That is my justification for speaking at this late hour of the night.
The Government must be aware of the disastrous effect of the increased Bank Rate, the Purchase Tax manipulations, the credit squeeze, the unleashing, on the one hand, of the dividend spree and, on the other, the almost wholesale embargo of a thousand and one items that we produce and are capable of producing to countries with populations amounting to 1,000 million.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me that I may be wrong, but this is fixed in the minds and the hearts of my constituents as well as

myself. They fear that it is the undying faith of many Tory politicians and their rich supporters to have a large army of unemployed for use as an effective instrument against those who may be in employment. I do not apologise for this language. The Government have asked for it.
Another cause of our anxiety is that many of our new factories in South Wales are offshoots or extensions of long-established factories outside Wales. It is, therefore, natural for us to fear that in a serious trade recession, these factories of ours would be the first to suffer. There is every reason for this fear.
One local factory has had to put off 70 workers because of the effect of Government policy on other works 200 or 300 miles from Merthyr Tydvil, owned by the same company. I know the principals of this excellent firm. They have a splendid way of handling the people whom they employ, they have a record of turning out first-class work, and they will do anything they can to co-operate. They tell me that their other works, whose production is different from that of the Merthyr Tydvil factory, have been so severely disrupted that the repercussions affect us in Merthyr Tydvil.
We in Merthyr Tydvil—in fact, in the whole of the South Wales Development Area—have no illusions as to which areas will be the first to suffer, and suffer most, if the Government persist in their present unemployment-making policy. Hence my reason for seeking this early opportunity of protesting against that policy and obtaining a frank reply to this question from a Government spokesman.
How can mass unemployment be avoided in Merthyr Tydvil and other parts of South Wales if the Government persist in their present policy? What message will the Parliamentary Secretary give me tonight to take back to my constituents? If it be an encouraging one, I assure him that it will be encouraging also to thousands of other workers in the factories and works in the valleys of Monmouthshire and Glamorgan.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may give us tonight a little encouragement because my constituency has long and painful memories of the tragic depression of the inter-war years. The seat of the industrial revolution in Wales had not known unemployment for 175 years. Yet, within months, its indus


trial foundation was removed from beneath it. I know that hon. Members have a shrewd idea of what the people there have gone through. I appeal to the Government to reconsider many of their techniques today, and to see to it that we shall not be hurtled back to the conditions we experienced in those sad years between the two world wars.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me two minutes to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies).
There is one vital consideration I would impress upon the Minister. I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on Monday that he would not be a party to the idea of bringing about unemployment in order to solve the problem of inflation. That is a policy with which we on this side heartily disagree. The problem of production is bound up with the mining problem in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend. I would stress that, because there are fears which the hon. Gentleman could nip in the bud right now. It is vitally important to the mining industry that in the areas where the mining industry is carried on there should be maintained and developed a variety of other industries. There should be varied industry in the Development Areas, of which my constituency forms a part.
I am very concerned at some of the questions and answers contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. It deals with the Development Areas, and there was a tendency in some of the questions and answers to suggest that if there were unemployment in other industries in the mining areas we should push young men into the mines. That is a most dangerous and specious argument. They will not be driven to the mines. They will go away from the mining areas to seek work and a more varied life elsewhere, and their parents themselves will pack up and go away, with the object of improving their children's prospects. There ought to be in the mining areas maintenance and development of various industries. There

are other important social aspects of the matter, but I have not time to deal with these now.

11.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): First, I would say how well I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) should feel concerned about any signs of increased unemployment in their areas. They represent one of the worst hit areas in the tragic depression of the 'twenties and 'thirties. I know that the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil suffered for eight years a consistent rate of more than 50 per cent. unemployment. I know that the memory of that distress must be strong, and must remain strong for a long time. I also know that it must have left a scar of anxiety which makes itself felt anew whenever signs of difficulty appear.
I would assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that we always consider this matter with an understanding of their interests, remembering what the people there suffered in the past. It is impossible for me, in the course of ten minutes, to go into all the issues of general Government policy which arise. For one thing it is really more for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade than for us at the Ministry of Labour to discuss trading policies, although I shall later say a little about those aspects.
In answer to the general point made by the hon. Gentleman, I want to repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. He said:
There is a great deal of talk about the need artificially to create unemployment. I for one will never be a party to that.
Later, he said:
…if it were once thought that in the need we have today…to cure the inflationary danger we were going to plunge back into a deflationary movement regardless of the effect upon the life of our industrial workers, we should fail—and deserve to fail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1956; Vol. 101, c. 42.]
That is the declared policy of the Government.
Coming to the details of the situation, I, would first, like to look at the facts of


the matter. While in no way belittling the importance and concern which the hon. Gentleman has stressed about recent events in his constituency, I believe that the figures will show that the situation is perhaps not as serious as he imagines it to be. We must consider the present position in this area against the general background of progress in the last few years. The average rate of unemployment in the Merthyr Tydvil area for as recently as the year 1951 was 6·5 per cent. For 1952, it was 6·6 per cent. In 1953, it was 5·1 per cent. In 1954, it was 4·3 per cent. In 1955, last year, it was 2·8 per cent. This is a record of substantial and steady progress.
What is the present position? There have recently been some serious redundancies, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, totalling about 500 people in the course of a week or two, mainly in one line of business. As a result, the latest figure of unemployment in the area, which relates to 13th February, the beginning of last week, was 882 people, representing 3.9 per cent, unemployment. That figure takes into account rather more than half of the 500 redundancies in question. The second half would only come into account this week, for which we have no figure, but even supposing all the efforts of my Ministry at resettlement failed—and I do not believe they are failing or will fail—we would then face the fact that the figure for unemployment would rise to perhaps 4½ per cent.
I hope it will not reach this figure, because I believe that we shall manage to place many of these people in alternative employment.
In considering the figure of 3·9 per cent. unemployment at 13th February we must realise that there is always a seasonal fluctuation at this time of year and that February is normally a bad time of the year. Bearing that in mind it may be useful to look at the February figure for the last few years. In February, 1951, it was 7·7 per cent.; in 1952, it was 6·6 per cent.; in 1953, it was 6·2 per cent.; in 1954, it was 5 per cent.; in 1955, it was 3·7 per cent. So that even after these redundancies, and even assuming that none of them is taken up—and I am sure it will not be as bad as that—the unemployment figure will

still be lower than it has ever been at this time of year, with the one exception of last year, when it was very slightly lower.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The seasonal redundancies did not take place in the factories at present affected.

Mr. Carr: But even with these redundancies, unemployment is lower than in any recent year at this time, with the exception of last year, and need not give cause for undue alarm; although I would not suggest that the figures should be disregarded—and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not disregarding them.
Having analysed these figures and put them in perspective, I should like to consider the industrial background in this area, because this is what really determines our judgment of what we think about the future trends and about the chances of placing those who have become redundant in new employment. The present redundancies have, as I have said, occurred almost entirely in one line of business—in the production of washing machines, and the packing facilities associated with that production.
This is important because the progress which has been achieved in recent years in reducing the rate of unemployment in the area has been due to the introduction of a number of new and varied industries. Here, I am indebted for information to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who, as the House will be aware, is responsible for the general distribution of industry and the carrying out of that policy.
At present, roughly one-third of the number of men employed in the Merthyr Tydvil area, and about half of the women, are working in these new industries—a very different picture indeed from that before the war, and a tremendous source of increased strength. The amount of factory building during and since the war in this area measures as much as close on a million square feet in terms of floor space.
I want to emphasise the variety of industry which has come into these new factories. They produce such diverse things as chemicals, aircraft parts, toys, perambulators, hosiery, and electric lamps. This diversity is, I believe, immensely important, because it should ensure that if the pattern of demand


changes, if one factory falls off for the moment, the general level of demand for labour in the area as a whole ought not to be too seriously affected.
I would point out to the hon. Member, who is concerned about some recent Government policies—the merits of which I cannot argue tonight—that the majority of these products are not going to be affected by recent changes, for example hire-purchase control. Perambulators, for instance, have been specifically excluded from these changes.

Mr. Davies: Washing machines?

Mr. Carr: Industries other than this one where there are redundancies at present are not likely to be affected by these measures.
We believe that these new firms are solidly based and are reasonably stable. We think that they are more or less self-contained units, and although they may be additional factories to parent firms elsewhere in the country, we do not believe that they are to be regarded as merely extensions of firms whose main production is carried on elsewhere. We think that they have come to Merthyr Tydvil to stay. We are reinforced in that belief by the faith that, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, some of these firms are big substantial concerns renowned as good and responsible employers, and we place considerable faith in them.
When we come to consider what has been done to place those declared redundant in alternative employment—and this is the main concern of the Minister of Labour—even in so short a time—only over the last two or three weeks—we have had considerable success.

Mr. Davies: In this locality?

Mr. Carr: Yes. By last Friday 120 of the workers from the washing machine factory had registered at our offices as wanting new employment. Of those, 70

had already been placed by the beginning of this week, 25 in coal mining, 11 in building, five in quarrying, eight in aircraft components, eight in defence work and the rest in miscellaneous trades. This week, a further 95 have registered and we are now actively engaged in trying to place them.
In reply to the hon. Member for Aberdare, I know that there have been some redundancies in his area and I hear that, unfortunately, there have been some more today. The position is, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said in reply to the Question on the 7th of this month, much easier at Aberdare than in neighbouring Merthyr Tydvil, because there are about as many registered vacancies as registered people wanting them, whereas in Merthyr Tydvil the position is not as favourable. We believe that the position there can be handled. I wish I could go into all this in more detail, because we realise its tremendous human importance.
To sum up, I believe that the figures I have given, and taking account of the latest redundancies, show that unemployment is lower than it has even been in any year but one in the history of this area and that figure should, therefore, give rise to some confidence.

Mr. Davies: It is a long history.

Mr. Carr: I know it is a long history, but the variety of industry, which I have briefly described, is a tremendous source of increased strength compared with pre-war years in facing anything that may come. Finally, I should like to repeat the Chancellor's assurance that it is not the Government's intention to try to solve our difficulties by deliberately creating a pool of unemployment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.